# Let's Talk Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread



## Clique

​A general thread to talk about politics. 

Featuring all-encompassing topical discussions about the United States and International political scenes. 

The hot-button government and social issues go down in here. 


Don't forget ladies & gentlemen, please keep the debates civil. bama3


----------



## Cypher13

Clique said:


> Don't forget ladies & gentlemen, *please keep the debates civil.*


Political talk while being civil in 2018? Good luck with that ositivity


----------



## CamillePunk

Can you give some guidelines on what kind of posts should go in this thread vs. what kind of posts should go in the Trump thread?


----------



## Clique

CamillePunk said:


> Can you give some guidelines on what kind of posts should go in this thread vs. what kind of posts should go in the Trump thread?


The Trump thread is about Trump, and this thread is about any political topic.


----------



## Odo

Leftism is cancer


----------



## birthday_massacre

Clique said:


> The Trump thread is about Trump, and this thread is about any political topic.


it may be easier to just rename the Trump thread the political thread and this the new Trump thread since the Trump thread the past few weeks is mostly another political talk


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

Politics eh?

You're evil if you don't believe what I believe.

Okay now that we've discussed politics, what is the next topic? Religion?

You're evil if you don't believe what I believe.

Perhaps music?

You have execrable taste if you don't listen to the music I listen to, and nothing else.

Food? 

We already talk about biscuits all the damn time.

WHAT IS LEFT TO TALK ABOUT?!

Well, there's always...

:reigns2

But this isn't the right forum for it, per se.


----------



## FITZ

I plan on coming here and making blanket statements to get everyone mad and arguing with each other and then not engage in the discussion I cause. 


Women who get abortions should get the death penalty.

There should be no gender specific bathrooms.


----------



## Tater

Clique said:


> The Trump thread is about Trump, and this thread is about any political topic.


We already discuss all political topics in the Trump thread. This thread is redundant. Besides, all political topics are related to who the president is anyways.


----------



## Clique

birthday_massacre said:


> Clique said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump thread is about Trump, and this thread is about any political topic.
> 
> 
> 
> it may be easier to just rename the Trump thread the political thread and this the new Trump thread since the Trump thread the past few weeks is mostly another political talk
Click to expand...

I originally proposed this idea to staff and I was advised it would be better to make a separate thread.


----------



## Draykorinee

2 threads? I'm fine with one place to have to listen to the left is cancer Muppets. It's those sjaydoubleyoos and progressives wot ruin are country.

Not the corporate elite, establishment politicians, religious theocracy or war mongering neocons.

It's the liberuls.


----------



## Tater

draykorinee said:


> 2 threads? I'm fine with one place to have to listen to the left is cancer Muppets. It's those sjaydoubleyoos and progressives wot ruin are country.
> 
> Not the corporate elite, establishment politicians, religious theocracy or war mongering neocons.
> 
> It's the liberuls.


3 threads now if you count the delusional Russiagate fantasy thread.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> 2 threads? I'm fine with one place to have to listen to the left is cancer Muppets. It's those sjaydoubleyoos and progressives wot ruin are country.
> 
> Not the corporate elite, establishment politicians, religious theocracy or war mongering neocons.
> 
> It's the liberuls.


sjaydoubleyoos and the religious theocracy are the same group of people. :laugh:

One worships an imaginary God, the other worships make believe genders and 
tenants of "justice". Both go out of their way to annoy everyone else and push their beliefs on everyone.

You forgot crony capitalism. I don't count the elite in this because it's this system that allows them to exploit everyone else.


----------



## Genking48

Alright then. Here we go (again) guys!


> https://www.thelocal.dk/20180927/danish-parliament-to-consider-ban-on-circumcision-in-october-report
> Danish parliament to consider ban on circumcision: report
> *A petition demanding parliament consider implementing a ban on circumcising boys under 18 is set to be considered by parliament.*
> 
> The petition reached in June the 50,000 signatures required to force parliament to take up the issue.
> 
> Parliament’s justice administration (Lovsekretariat) has since processed the petition and found it not to be in breach of the constitution and therefore valid for parliamentary consideration.
> 
> Intact Danmark, a lobby group opposed to circumcision of healthy children, told broadcaster DR it expected parliament to vote on the issue in October.
> 
> “We are pleased. It is a small piece of Danish and world history that we are now ready to take this step,” the group’s chairperson Lena Nyhus told DR.
> 
> Supporters of the ban say that children should be allowed the right to make their own decisions over the procedure, and that long-term physical effects can result.
> 
> Opponents argue that it is parents’ right to circumcise children under 18 and that religious circumcisions fall under freedom of religion.
> 
> According to a survey conducted by DR in April, the majority of parties in parliament are yet to confirm their position on the issue or will allow their MPs to vote in accordance with personal views.
> 
> Circumcision of boys in Denmark is not common and is usually only conducted for religious reasons.
> 
> In 2016, The Economist reported that over 50 percent of male children were circumcised in the United States, in comparison with between two and three percent in Finland and the United Kingdom.


I think this came up earlier in the year. But I guess the politicians now have to come clean. Do they support this or will they go against the opinions of the majority (83 per cent of Danes support an age limit on circumcising boys according to polls).


----------



## Reaper

Genking48 said:


> Alright then. Here we go (again) guys!
> 
> I think this came up earlier in the year. But I guess the politicians now have to come clean. Do they support this or will they go against the opinions of the majority (83 per cent of Danes support an age limit on circumcising boys according to polls).


I support this too. Unfortunately, in America people against circumcision are still ridiculed because even secular minded atheists here are still convinced that having foreskin is bad for men .. I bring up secular atheists because while they acknowledge that most religious ideas are bad, they've accepted circumcision as either a good idea or they downplayed the impact of an invasive procedure because they're not aware of the existence of men who have been irreparably damaged by it.


----------



## Genking48

Reap said:


> I support this too. Unfortunately, in America people against circumcision are still ridiculed because even secular minded atheists here are still convinced that having foreskin is bad for men .. I bring up secular atheists because while they acknowledge that most religious ideas are bad, they've accepted circumcision as either a good idea or they downplayed the impact of an invasive procedure because they're not aware of the existence of men who have been irreparably damaged by it.


From someone not American. It just seems to be a whole lot of "It's tradition, there is no _real _reason as to why we keep doing this. But we've pretty much always done it, so now it's tradition."


----------



## Reaper

Meanwhile in Pakistan :mj4

https://www.dawn.com/news/1435891



> *Bureaucrat caught stealing Kuwaiti delegate’s wallet*
> 
> ISLAMABAD: A senior bureaucrat caused embarrassment to the country when he was caught stealing the wallet of a member of the Kuwaiti delegation which visited the country to discuss investment plans in Pakistan, Dawn has learnt.
> 
> Sources said the theft was committed by a grade-20 officer of the Pakistan Administrative Services Group, deployed at the Finance Ministry and he was caught through closed-circuit TV camera (CCTV) footage after the members of the Kuwaiti delegation lodged a strong protest.
> 
> In the six-second leaked video clip, which also went viral on social media, the bureaucrat could be seen lifting the wallet from the table and putting it into his pocket at a time when all Kuwaiti delegates and officials of the ministry had left the hall at the Economic Affairs Division after the meeting.
> 
> The issue came to light when a member of the Kuwaiti delegation lodged a complaint with the Pakistan officials that his wallet containing a handsome amount of the Kuwaiti dinar had gone missing during the meeting.
> 
> A search was conducted in the ministry and all the rooms and offices were combed. Even the lower grade employees of the ministry were quizzed and physically searched but nothing was found.
> 
> Later, the footage captured by a CCTV camera installed at the hall was examined which revealed that the stealing was committed by the senior officer. When the officer was approached, he first denied his involvement, but when the footage was shown to him he produced the wallet, the sources stated.
> 
> When the Kuwaiti official was informed about the recovery of his wallet, the members of the delegation asked the authorities to provide them identification of the culprit. The Pakistani officials initially showed reluctance and assured the guests that legal action would be taken against the person.
> 
> However, the sources said, it was on the insistence of the delegates who were extremely angry over the incident that Pakistani officials informed them about the person and the Kuwaitis were also shown the CCTV footage.
> 
> So far, no complaint has been registered with the police.
> 
> The sources in the ministry said that an internal inquiry was in progress against the bureaucrat and further action would be taken keeping in view its recommendations.
> 
> When during a news briefing, a question about the incident was put before Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry, he simply said that most of the present bureaucrats had got “moral training” during the previous governments.
> 
> Published in Dawn, September 30th, 2018


---



Genking48 said:


> From someone not American. It just seems to be a whole lot of "It's tradition, there is no _real _reason as to why we keep doing this. But we've pretty much always done it, so now it's tradition."


Tradition is just one of the reasons why it's done. Unfortunately, they're still stuck on age old medieval mindset that "it's hard to clean so chop it off" as the primary reason. The Europeans that came to America and settled here were a superstitious bunch and many of their superstitions still persist. Like most Americans still have an irrational fear/phobia of rats and mice even though the plague happened hundreds of years ago and now it's curable. Many still wipe out entire populations of raccoons fearing "rabies" etc. The government is still engaged in killing wild wolves and coyotes because the farmers lose a few animals here and there. 

Much of America still has a very medieval superstitious/paranoid European quality to it.


----------



## Stephen90

https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-palins-eldest-son-arrested-domestic-violence-charges-1145233


Track Palin, the eldest son of former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, has been arrested on assault charges. 

Palin, 29, of Wasilla, Alaska, was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence, interfering with a report of domestic violence and resisting arrest, according to a report released Saturday by Alaska State Troopers.

According to the police report, when a female acquaintance attempted to call police to report the alleged crimes, he took her phone from her. 

Palin is being remanded in Mat-Su Pretrial Facility and is being held on a $500 unsecured bond, reported KTUU. 

He appeared in court Saturday, where he declared himself "not guilty, for sure" when asked his plea, reported the network. 

Palin faces three Class A misdemeanours, meaning he could be imprisoned for up to a year and fined $250,000. He has also been charged with a Class B misdemeanour, punishable by a day in jail and a $2,000 fine. 

It is not the first time criminal charges have been filed against Palin

In December 2017, he was accused of assaulting his father, Todd Palin. His mother, Sarah Palin, called police to report the alleged attack. 

The case is currently before Alaska’s Veteran’s Court. 

In January 2016 he was charged with domestic assault, interfering with the report of a domestic violence crime, and possessing a weapon while intoxicated in connection with the incident. His girlfriend had alleged that he punched her in the face.

Sarah Palin was criticised by veterans groups in 2016 after linking her son’s violent behaviour to PTSD stemming from his service in Iraq.


----------



## virus21




----------



## IndyTaker

draykorinee said:


> 2 threads? I'm fine with one place to have to listen to the left is cancer Muppets. It's those sjaydoubleyoos and progressives wot ruin are country.
> 
> Not the corporate elite, establishment politicians, religious theocracy or war mongering neocons.
> 
> It's the liberuls.


It's actually the snobby elite liberals who look down at the working class and don't listen to them. Liberals have already ruined California and those "great" Democrats really have done a lot for Detroit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

IndyTaker said:


> It's actually the snobby elite liberals who look down at the working class and don't listen to them. Liberals have already ruined California and those "great" Democrats really have done a lot for Detroit.


LOL That is why CA is the worlds 5th biggest economy, bigger than Britan. yeah the libs really ruined CA ha ha ha


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL That is why CA is the worlds 5th biggest economy, bigger than Britan. yeah the libs really ruined CA ha ha ha


Yet conservatives are so obsessed with trying to get rid of California.


----------



## IndyTaker

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL That is why CA is the worlds 5th biggest economy, bigger than Britan. yeah the libs really ruined CA ha ha ha


California is a mess with their illegals. San Francisco has a huge homeless problem. Hollywood has a pedophile problem. California has the highest poverty rate in the US. Lastly, California has very high taxes. What a great state California is; good job libs.


----------



## Draykorinee

IndyTaker said:


> It's actually the snobby elite liberals who look down at the working class and don't listen to them. Liberals have already ruined California and those "great" Democrats really have done a lot for Detroit.


I don't like snobby elites full stop, I don't care if it's the liberuls or the GOP. They all look down on the working class. What the fuck kind of point did you think you were making?


----------



## IndyTaker

draykorinee said:


> I don't like snobby elites full stop, I don't care if it's the liberuls or the GOP. They all look down on the working class. What the fuck kind of point did you think you were making?


You were acting like liberals have no part in ruining the country.


----------



## birthday_massacre

IndyTaker said:


> California is a mess with their illegals. San Francisco has a huge homeless problem. Hollywood has a pedophile problem. California has the highest poverty rate in the US. Lastly, California has very high taxes. What a great state California is; good job libs.


So with those few problems and they still have the 5th highest economy in the world, that is an even bigger feat. Yeah high taxes gets them the 5th best economy in the world, imagine that. The hollywood one is laughable since not everyone in hollywood is from CA nor do they live in CA. As for CA having the highest poverty rate, depends which critera you are going by, so of course you use the one to show CA (Supplemental Poverty Measure.) , surprise surprise


----------



## IndyTaker

birthday_massacre said:


> So with those few problems and they still have the 5th highest economy in the world, that is an even bigger feat. Yeah high taxes gets them the 5th best economy in the world, imagine that. The hollywood one is laughable since not everyone in hollywood is from CA nor do they live in CA. As for CA having the highest poverty rate, depends which critera you are going by, so of course you use the one to show CA (Supplemental Poverty Measure.) , surprise surprise


Lol, you couldn't refute any of my points. You don't know anything about wrestling or politics. Stick to watching Spider-Man.


----------



## birthday_massacre

IndyTaker said:


> Lol, you couldn't refute any of my points. You don't know anything about wrestling or politics. Stick to watching Spider-Man.


They have the 5th highest economy in the world even with the things you mentioned, yet you claimed CA is ruined.


----------



## IndyTaker

birthday_massacre said:


> They have the 5th highest economy in the world even with the things you mentioned, yet you claimed CA is ruined.


"Adjust for cost of living, which is 36% higher than the national average, and California comes out behind Mexico" Not really.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

IndyTaker said:


> California is a mess with their illegals. San Francisco has a huge homeless problem. Hollywood has a pedophile problem. California has the highest poverty rate in the US. Lastly, California has very high taxes. What a great state California is; good job libs.


When it comes to SF and LA I think what you have there is a problem even bigger then the state. Essentially you have a worldwide problem of Political and Business Leadership have no plans for overcrowded megacities.The speculative real estate bubble is responsible for a lot of the poverty in these cities.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Do the 'compassionate' elite conservatives not look down at the working class too? It is always a balance. You think if far right conservatives have their way, your country will be better? There are always good points to take from either side.

Most of the cost of living issues in large cities is largely due to overpopulation and free market principles. I guess the most common comparison with conservative government versus liberal government in America would be Texas versus California. Texas definitely wins that one to me in terms of cost of living so you might have a point.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The conservative neocons fucked up the middle with 2 wars and allowed the banks to crash the economy. So even IF they ruined California they're still a ways to go to catch up.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> The conservative neocons fucked up the middle with 2 wars and allowed the banks to crash the economy. So even IF they ruined California they're still a ways to go to catch up.


Neolibs and Neocons run Cali. Where have you been? Both parties are one party.

As for Cali it has a big economy but a poorly maintained infrastructure and cannot cope with the poverty or homeless issue it's facing. The dam issue they had what was it last year? Was due to lack of maintenance. They can keep those rich gated communities secure but when it comes for paying for anything else, well they're broke.

Cali also struggles to even support it's population, needing to steal resources from nearby states. Cali is basically a rich man who cannot afford a value meal at McDonalds. 

Ask DROW he posts a lot of Cali related info as he lives there, think CP also lives there.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Neolibs and Neocons run Cali. Where have you been? Both parties are one party.
> 
> As for Cali it has a big economy but a poorly maintained infrastructure and cannot cope with the poverty or homeless issue it's facing. The dam issue they had what was it last year? Was due to lack of maintenance. They can keep those rich gated communities secure but when it comes for paying for anything else, well they're broke.
> 
> Cali also struggles to even support it's population, needing to steal resources from nearby states. Cali is basically a rich man who cannot afford a value meal at McDonalds.
> 
> Ask DROW he posts a lot of Cali related info as he lives there, think CP also lives there.


Cool, my knowledge of Cali is so limited. I just have no time for people like taker that seem hellbent on demonising the left when both sides are at it, they don't always have equal opportunity to be assholes but when they get their chances they don't half jump at it.

This is precisely why I don't trust labour, I should, they've been my part for life but Tony Blair did more harm to my country (and the world) than most Tory PMs.

As with all bashing the left or right posts, make sure your own house is in order first.

I don't care if you're a GOP neocon or a Establishment Dem Neocon, you're the enemy of politics IMO.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Talk of Michael Avennati running for president. Sounds about right.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Talk of Michael Avennati running for president. Sounds about right.


that isn't really serious is it? Like he would even stand a chance against people like Bernie, Tulsi or Warren


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> that isn't really serious is it? Like he would even stand a chance against people like Bernie, Tulsi or Warren


Yeah he'd stand a chance against them. Those aren't the greatest of candidates. Tulsi perhaps is the best. Warren is terrible. Bernie has his supporters but he's annoying. It's all about personality these days. Personality has always mattered since television/video began to influence these things.

He could conceivably out fake tough-guy Trump's very fake tough-guy.

Trump bases his character off of a Steven Segal character.

ANYBODY SEEN RICHIE


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Neolibs and Neocons run Cali. Where have you been? Both parties are one party.
> 
> As for Cali it has a big economy but a poorly maintained infrastructure and cannot cope with the poverty or homeless issue it's facing. The dam issue they had what was it last year? Was due to lack of maintenance. They can keep those rich gated communities secure but when it comes for paying for anything else, well they're broke.
> 
> Cali also struggles to even support it's population, needing to steal resources from nearby states. Cali is basically a rich man who cannot afford a value meal at McDonalds.
> 
> Ask DROW he posts a lot of Cali related info as he lives there, think CP also lives there.


I mean...what is the alternative? Neoconservatism and neoliberalism are better than anarchy or communism to me. Do you want the green party governing with more social justice?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I regret voting for Obama the 2nd time.

- Vic


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Yeah he'd stand a chance against them. Those aren't the greatest of candidates. Tulsi perhaps is the best. Warren is terrible. Bernie has his supporters but he's annoying. It's all about personality these days. Personality has always mattered since television/video began to influence these things.
> 
> He could conceivably out fake tough-guy Trump's very fake tough-guy.
> 
> Trump bases his character off of a Steven Segal character.
> 
> ANYBODY SEEN RICHIE


Bernie, Booker or Avenatti would be a dream for conservatives.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The most popular politician in American politics would be a dream for conservatives.

:hmm


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> The most popular politician in American politics would be a dream for conservatives.
> 
> :hmm


Absolutely would be. In 2016 Bernie would've smoked Trump. Now? Not a chance.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Absolutely would be. In 2016 Bernie would've smoked Trump. Now? Not a chance.


I'm just unsure how that is true. According to polls he's the most popular politician and he's ahead of Trump in polls in regards to an imaginary vote. His platform, whilst many will lambast, is a populist movement which the polls suggest is far more popular than the Wrestling forum would have you believe.

I'm not a massive believer in polls, but there is not a single one that would suggest Bernie would even LOSE to Trump let alone not stand a chance and his political stances are seeing even larger numbers supporting it. For example medicare for all now has a 70% approval among Americans, up from 50%, and even among Republican voters it now have a majority approval rating.

All of this is happening while Trumps pollings are falling (Depends on the poll by how much)

I'd agree he's not as strong as before but neither is Trump, Jan 2017 his Disapproval rating was 47% and now its 53%.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> I'm just unsure how that is true. According to polls he's the most popular politician and he's ahead of Trump in polls in regards to an imaginary vote. His platform, whilst many will lambast, is a populist movement which the polls suggest is far more popular than the Wrestling forum would have you believe.
> 
> I'm not a massive believer in polls, but there is not a single one that would suggest Bernie would even LOSE to Trump let alone not stand a chance and his political stances are seeing even larger numbers supporting it. For example medicare for all now has a 70% approval among Americans, up from 50%, and even among Republican voters it now have a majority approval rating.
> 
> All of this is happening while Trumps pollings are falling (Depends on the poll by how much)
> 
> I'd agree he's not as strong as before but neither is Trump, Jan 2017 his Disapproval rating was 47% and now its 53%.


He's a radical. The right would never vote for him and once he's forced to debate with Trump he'd get destroyed. He plays off being likeable. Once people inevitably learn he's not this super great guy he comes off as and his policies aren't realistic he'd be done. FWIW since you like using numbers. Vegas has Trump winning in 2020 at 3/2, and Bernie at 14/1. Also LOL at you quoting fucking Vox.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

lol bernie would squash trump in 2020.

2016 was not the election of Donald J. Trump. It was the rejection of Hillary Rodham Clinton. 

as long as the dems don't rig the primaries for a corrupt establishment dem, they'll win easily. and even if they try, i'm not sure it'll work this time as bernie's popularity has only gotten larger.

bernie would win all the states hillary did, plus the rust belt, plus possibly florida.

trump has done nothing the past two years, and will do nothing in the next two, but alienate african-americans, hispanics, women, and young people from voting for him. and in fact, has encouraged them to show up to the polls in droves against him with his stances and policies on child separation at the border, the national anthem, failing of puerto rico recovery, his blatant disrespect to women with is unwavering loyalty to scum like roy moore and brett kavanaugh, and of course those god-awful tax cuts that only benefit the rich.

people like me who sat at home on election day in 2016 have all the more reason to get out and vote in 2020. and if you give us someone who excites us with popular populist policies... then lordy, it'll be a bloodbath.

i live in a deep red state, so most of my family is conservative. yet half of them told me they would've voted bernie instead of trump in 2016 if he'd have been the nominee.

turns out, populist policies like getting money out of politics, medicare for all, college for all, and ending the wars are bipartisan issues to the majority of americans.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Bernie would show up, get destroyed in every debate because he doesn't have a realistic platform, get called out for his rape paper he wrote, his wife embezzling money and how he tried covering it up. He'd be crippled. None of that impacts Trump because everyone knows he's a douche. Once people find out Bernie isn't this nice, honest guy he'd be done as falling back on "free college" isn't going to fly with anyone who has a brain. If you're coming out to vote for Bernie Sanders after skipping 2016, I highly question your critical thinking ability.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I mean...what is the alternative? Neoconservatism and neoliberalism are better than anarchy or communism to me. Do you want the green party governing with more social justice?


We don't need to be enslaved by systems.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Bernie would show up, get destroyed in every debate because he doesn't have a realistic platform, get called out for his rape paper he wrote, his wife embezzling money and how he tried covering it up. He'd be crippled. None of that impacts Trump because everyone knows he's a douche. Once people find out Bernie isn't this nice, honest guy he'd be done as falling back on "free college" isn't going to fly with anyone who has a brain. If you're coming out to vote for Bernie Sanders after skipping 2016, I highly question your critical thinking ability.


I mean there's only so much naivety you can put in a post but this is pretty much full to the brim.

You really think after Trump people will care about the embezzlement? Trump paid 25 million dollars out because his University defrauded students. Trump has paved the way for any crook or sexual predator to be president as long as they appeal to a populist movement. 

Right now, whether or not you think his platform is credible, the majority of the electorate do believe in it and they want it.

Free college is supported by the majority, medicare for all is supported by the majority, his anti-war stance is supported by the majority, his gun law reform is overwhelmingly supported. Your complete dismissal of the facts and presentation of purely subjective opinions and flawed assessments are noted.


----------



## jroc72191

Reap said:


> I support this too. Unfortunately, in America people against circumcision are still ridiculed because even secular minded atheists here are still convinced that having foreskin is bad for men .. I bring up secular atheists because while they acknowledge that most religious ideas are bad, they've accepted circumcision as either a good idea or they downplayed the impact of an invasive procedure because they're not aware of the existence of men who have been irreparably damaged by it.


foreskin is disgusting... I am glad my mom got mine cut off when I came out the womb and as a bi man, it NEVER EVER looks good on someone


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Absolutely would be. In 2016 Bernie would've smoked Trump. Now? Not a chance.


how so? Bernie is more popular now and he has better name recognition than he did in 2016. So you think he has no chance now LOL He crushs Trump now in all head to head polls.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> I mean there's only so much naivety you can put in a post but this is pretty much full to the brim.
> 
> You really think after Trump people will care about the embezzlement? Trump paid 25 million dollars out because his University defrauded students. Trump has paved the way for any crook or sexual predator to be president as long as they appeal to a populist movement.
> 
> Right now, whether or not you think his platform is credible, the majority of the electorate do believe in it and they want it.
> 
> Free college is supported by the majority, medicare for all is supported by the majority, his anti-war stance is supported by the majority, his gun law reform is overwhelmingly supported. Your complete dismissal of the facts and presentation of purely subjective opinions and flawed assessments are noted.


Majority of people support free college. LOL. You keep using those same polls that showed Hilary would stomp Trump and see where that leads you bud.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Majority of people support free college. LOL. You keep using those same polls that showed Hilary would stomp Trump and see where that leads you bud.


I'm not sure on the polls methodology you're referring to but she did win in terms of popular vote so I'm not sure if these polls are skewed in that direction. I could be wrong.

Either way, there's a difference, the shy tory phenomenon exists in America too, that had a very important role in why the polls were off in the election. I don't feel that's the same here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Majority of people support free college. LOL. You keep using those same polls that showed Hilary would stomp Trump and see where that leads you bud.


Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million votes, the polls were right LOL 

Oh and look Jeff Bezos caved to Bernie Sanders and is now giving his workers $15 an hour


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/sanders-praises-jeff-bezos-for-hiking-amazon-minimum-wage-to-15.html

Bernie Sanders praises Jeff Bezos for hiking Amazon minimum wage to $15


Sen. Bernie Sanders praised CEO Jeff Bezos on Tuesday after Amazon announced that it will increase the minimum wage for its workers to $15 per hour for all U.S. employees.

"It is no secret that I have been a harsh critic of the wage and employment practices of Amazon and its owner Jeff Bezos," Sanders said. "It has been my view that the middle class and working families of this country should not have to subsidize Mr. Bezos, the wealthiest person on Earth, because many of his Amazon employees earned wages that were so low that they were forced to go on government programs like food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing."

Last month, Sanders introduced legislation named the Bezos Act that would tax corporations for every dollar their low-wage workers receive in government health-care benefits or food stamps.

The Vermont senator on Tuesday congratulated Bezos "for doing exactly the right thing." Amazon said it will also start advocating for an increase to the federal minimum wage.

"Today, I want to give credit where credit is due," Sanders said.

Sanders has been fighting for several years to increase the minimum wage in the United States to $15 per hour. In his statement, Sanders also thanked Amazon workers who reached out to his office asking for support fighting for a minimum wage hike.

The senator said Amazon's announcement, "could well be a shot heard around the world." Sanders called on other profitable companies to make similar moves.

"Bottom line is that in the richest county in the history of the world, no full-time employee should be living in poverty," Sanders said.

Bezos thanked Sanders on Twitter and said he "hopes others will join in."


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> I'm not sure on the polls methodology you're referring to but she did win in terms of popular vote so I'm not sure if these polls are skewed in that direction. I could be wrong.
> 
> Either way, there's a difference, the shy tory phenomenon exists in America too, that had a very important role in why the polls were off in the election. I don't feel that's the same here.


I think it's absolutely the same. The silent majority (from what I've seen in my obviously limited experience) is trending very hard right at the moment despite most of my friends being classic Dems. Not worth much as it's just anecdotal but I don't know anyone who would willingly vote for Bernie. He's too radical.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> I mean there's only so much naivety you can put in a post but this is pretty much full to the brim.
> 
> You really think after Trump people will care about the embezzlement? Trump paid 25 million dollars out because his University defrauded students. Trump has paved the way for any crook or sexual predator to be president as long as they appeal to a populist movement.
> 
> Right now, whether or not you think his platform is credible, the majority of the electorate do believe in it and they want it.
> 
> Free college is supported by the majority, medicare for all is supported by the majority, his anti-war stance is supported by the majority, his gun law reform is overwhelmingly supported. Your complete dismissal of the facts and presentation of purely subjective opinions and flawed assessments are noted.



I think one of the tell tale signs (to me) will be the gubernatorial race here in MD.

We are a blue state, and have a candidate Ben jealous who is a democrat, and has even said that he considers himself a socialist, and is also pushing for the $15 per hour minimum.

Right now he is behind, but if he loses, in a state like Maryland that has notoriously democratic, and minority, then I would assume Bernie and his ideas aren't as well received as most would think.

If he wins, then I would concede that maybe the Bern train might be more than what Republicans would let on


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> I think it's absolutely the same. The silent majority (from what I've seen in my obviously limited experience) is trending very hard right at the moment despite most of my friends being classic Dems. Not worth much as it's just anecdotal but I don't know anyone who would willingly vote for Bernie. He's too radical.


How is Bernie too radical LOL

OH I cant wait to hear this one


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I think one of the tell tale signs (to me) will be the gubernatorial race here in MD.
> 
> We are a blue state, and have a candidate Ben jealous who is a democrat, and has even said that he considers himself a socialist, and is also pushing for the $15 per hour minimum.
> 
> Right now he is behind, but if he loses, in a state like Maryland that has notoriously democratic, and minority, then I would assume Bernie and his ideas aren't as well received as most would think.
> 
> If he wins, then I would concede that maybe the Bern train might be more than what Republicans would let on


Bernies ideas are some of the most popular in the country. 70% of Americans support Medicare for all for example. He is the most popular politician in the country because his ideas are so well received. 

Jeff Bezos just made a $15 min wage for Amazon because of Bernie Sanders.

You need to start using facts


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Bernies ideas are some of the most popular in the country. 70% of Americans support Medicare for all for example. He is the most popular politician in the country because his ideas are so well received.
> 
> Jeff Bezos just made a $15 min wage for Amazon because of Bernie Sanders.
> 
> You need to start using facts


Well, look at you putting words in my mouth.

Where did I sate that Bernie wasn't popular? or that Amazon didn't start a $15 an hour minimum wage?

You need to stop assuming things and actually comment on the content of the post


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Bernies ideas are some of the most popular in the country. 70% of Americans support Medicare for all for example. He is the most popular politician in the country because his ideas are so well received.
> 
> Jeff Bezos just made a $15 min wage for Amazon because of Bernie Sanders.
> 
> You need to start using facts


Any other ideas besides min wage hike and free college and health care? Im genuinely asking mostly because I didnt care much for him when he ran (though I liked him more than Hillary) so I didnt pay much attention other than hearing this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Any other ideas besides min wage hike and free college and health care? Im genuinely asking mostly because I didnt care much for him when he ran (though I liked him more than Hillary) so I didnt pay much attention other than hearing this.


You are the ones claiming his ideas are not popular, so why don't you tell me which ones aren't.

And you can't base one specific election and claim OH that means Bernie's ideas are not popular.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the ones claiming his ideas are not popular, so why don't you tell me which ones aren't.
> 
> And you can't base one specific election and claim OH that means Bernie's ideas are not popular.


Um no I didnt say anything about his ideas, you said he has popular ideas. I was wondering if there was anything other than what I had listed or if it was just those 3 things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Um no I didnt say anything about his ideas, you said he has popular ideas. I was wondering if there was anything other than what I had listed or if it was just those 3 things.


If you want a few more, he wants money out of politics, break up the big banks, stricter gun control, better laws to protect against climate change, wants a more progressive tax plan, wants to withdraw for all these wars etc etc Those are just the ones off the top of my head


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Um no I didnt say anything about his ideas, you said he has popular ideas. I was wondering if there was anything other than what I had listed or if it was just those 3 things.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders

it's wikipedia, so beware the universal editing


----------



## Draykorinee

DMD Mofomagic said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean there's only so much naivety you can put in a post but this is pretty much full to the brim.
> 
> You really think after Trump people will care about the embezzlement? Trump paid 25 million dollars out because his University defrauded students. Trump has paved the way for any crook or sexual predator to be president as long as they appeal to a populist movement.
> 
> Right now, whether or not you think his platform is credible, the majority of the electorate do believe in it and they want it.
> 
> Free college is supported by the majority, medicare for all is supported by the majority, his anti-war stance is supported by the majority, his gun law reform is overwhelmingly supported. Your complete dismissal of the facts and presentation of purely subjective opinions and flawed assessments are noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think one of the tell tale signs (to me) will be the gubernatorial race here in MD.
> 
> We are a blue state, and have a candidate Ben jealous who is a democrat, and has even said that he considers himself a socialist, and is also pushing for the $15 per hour minimum.
> 
> Right now he is behind, but if he loses, in a state like Maryland that has notoriously democratic, and minority, then I would assume Bernie and his ideas aren't as well received as most would think.
> 
> If he wins, then I would concede that maybe the Bern train might be more than what Republicans would let on
Click to expand...

Jealous is fighting uphill against a guy who has a 75% job approval rating, it's not an indicator of anything.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Haha at no one should earn more than a million dollars (if this is accurate). And if the tax plan I just read on him from a 2016 article is correct, it looks horrible. Again, I am no tax expert just reading from an article on taxfoundation.org so if its a bogus site my apologies. I cant copy the article because of the chromebook I am on but if you google "bernie sanders tax plan" I think its the first one to come up, if you care to read about it. 

It says there will be a 10.5% reduction in all tax payers' after tax income which is not good, to me anyways. Also a 2.2% tax for income based healthcare premium". I can get on board with that if I no longer have money taken out to pay for my health insurance, but overall it doesnt look too good. Again, I am far from a tax expert so if I am reading or understanding this wrong, please correct me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> *Haha at no one should earn more than a million dollars (if this is accurate).* And if the tax plan I just read on him from a 2016 article is correct, it looks horrible. Again, I am no tax expert just reading from an article on taxfoundation.org so if its a bogus site my apologies. I cant copy the article because of the chromebook I am on but if you google "bernie sanders tax plan" I think its the first one to come up, if you care to read about it.
> 
> It says there will be a 10.5% reduction in all tax payers' after tax income which is not good, to me anyways. Also a 2.2% tax for income based healthcare premium". I can get on board with that if I no longer have money taken out to pay for my health insurance, but overall it doesnt look too good. Again, I am far from a tax expert so if I am reading or understanding this wrong, please correct me.


Pretty sure you are taking that out of context. Where did you see that? I have heard Sanders say no CEO should earn more than 1000 times its employees. 

You said you are no tax expert so how do you know his tax plan is not good ? That being said do you think the current GOP tax plan Trump put into place is good? You know the one that is going to crash the economy.

Here is his tax plan


https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Pretty sure you are taking that out of context. Where did you see that? I have heard Sanders say no CEO should earn more than 1000 times its employees.
> 
> You said you are no tax expert so how do you know his tax plan is not good ? That being said do you think the current GOP tax plan Trump put into place is good? You know the one that is going to crash the economy.
> 
> Here is his tax plan
> 
> 
> https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/


Well I have seen a bump in pay since Trumps plan started and this one is saying I will be paying more in taxes, thus losing money. So I am in favor of the one that says I get more money. 

Im still out on the economy crash. I think some of yall have said it will happen within the next year or two. If it happens then we can re evaluate but until then, if it even happens, I am a big fan of the current plan.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Pretty sure you are taking that out of context. Where did you see that? I have heard Sanders say no CEO should earn more than 1000 times its employees.
> 
> You said you are no tax expert so how do you know his tax plan is not good ? That being said do you think the current GOP tax plan Trump put into place is good? You know the one that is going to crash the economy.
> 
> Here is his tax plan
> 
> 
> https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/


His million dollar quote is in the wiki article so I went to the article it references and it required me to pay to see the whole article so I didnt see if it was 100% accurate. If its not accurate then I take it back, Im in a bit of a hurry and didnt have a chance to look into it fully.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> His million dollar quote is in the wiki article so I went to the article it references and it required me to pay to see the whole article so I didnt see if it was 100% accurate. If its not accurate then I take it back, Im in a bit of a hurry and didnt have a chance to look into it fully.


If true, did you happen to see what year he said that lol? It was 1974. he has never said anything like that currently that I have seen. To put that in perspective, the average salary in 1974 was 8,000 per year.

I guess you can say him saying no CEO should make 1000x that of their average employee is similar. But when you look at it in 1974 terms of making $1m per year vs the average person making 8,000. do you think he is wrong?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Haha at no one should earn more than a million dollars (if this is accurate). And if the tax plan I just read on him from a 2016 article is correct, it looks horrible. Again, I am no tax expert just reading from an article on taxfoundation.org so if its a bogus site my apologies. I cant copy the article because of the chromebook I am on but if you google "bernie sanders tax plan" I think its the first one to come up, if you care to read about it.
> 
> It says there will be a 10.5% reduction in all tax payers' after tax income which is not good, to me anyways. Also a 2.2% tax for income based healthcare premium". I can get on board with that if I no longer have money taken out to pay for my health insurance, but overall it doesnt look too good. Again, I am far from a tax expert so if I am reading or understanding this wrong, please correct me.


Apparently Bloomberg found a n article from 1974.



> In a 1974 article titled “Concentrated Wealth Is Causing Economic Illness,” from an unidentified newspaper that was in his papers at the University of Vermont library, Sanders is described as wanting to “make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime.” He would do that, the article said, with “a 100 percent tax on incomes above this level ($ one million per year)” and “would recycle this money for the public need.”
> 
> Also in 1974, when Sanders was the Liberty Union’s candidate for Senate in Vermont, he told the Burlington Free Press that “nobody should earn more than $1 million,” a line that was mentioned in passing in a July story in Politico. The Sanders campaign did not respond to requests for comment.


Of course the other telling portion is a 100% tax rate.

By the way 1 million dollars in 1974 is only about 5.3 million here.

I would assume that he would have to walk that statement back, because if he would propose that, I can't see him getting that much support.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Apparently Bloomberg found a n article from 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the other telling portion is a 100% tax rate.
> 
> By the way 1 million dollars in 1974 is only about 5.3 million here.
> 
> *I would assume that he would have to walk that statement back, because if he would propose that, I can't see him getting that much support*.


Yeah that is why now he says it like no CEO should make 1000x that of their average employee. Basically saying that the average workers wages should keep up with the top CEO, which I would hope everyone can agree with, Bezos did since he finally set at $15 min wage for Amazon, so that is a start


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah that is why now he says it like no CEO should make 1000x that of their average employee. *Basically saying that the average workers wages should keep up with the top CEO, which I would hope everyone can agree with*, Bezos did since he finally set at $15 min wage for Amazon, so that is a start


How would you calculate those numbers then?

And where would the calculations come from...

Profit? Income? Revenue?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> How would you calculate those numbers then?
> 
> And where would the calculations come from...
> 
> Profit? Income? Revenue?


it would be income obviously. What would profit and revenue have to do with it?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> it would be income obviously. What would profit and revenue have to do with it?


I am asking you, because you made the statement.

So you think it should be CEO income.

But what if a CEO has multiple businesses... how would his income be calculated then?

I have a problem with vague terms like :

He shouldn't make 1000 times more than his average worker, because it sounds like if an income comes through different revenue streams, that would have nothing to do with those workers, right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I am asking you, because you made the statement.
> 
> So you think it should be CEO income.
> 
> But what if a CEO has multiple businesses... how would his income be calculated then?
> 
> I have a problem with vague terms like :
> 
> He shouldn't make 1000 times more than his average worker, because it sounds like if an income comes through different revenue streams, that would have nothing to do with those workers, right?


Its not a vague term and 99% of CEOs only work for one company.

You are just getting into semantics.

What Sanders is talking about is the top people in a company should not be making 1000x more than the average workers. He is not talking about the rare cases where a CEO may also be a founder or be CEO for a couple different companies. 

Sanders point is in many cases the average CEO makes more in a day or even week than their average worker does in a year.

The average yearly salary of a CEO in the fortune 500 companies is like $14 or 15 million per year. In those cases those CEOs are making almost 400x their average worker.


http://time.com/money/5287123/ceo-pay-afl-cio/


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not a vague term and 99% of CEOs only work for one company.
> 
> You are just getting into semantics.


I just wanted clarity before giving my opinion



> What Sanders is talking about is the top people in a company should not be making 1000x more than the average workers. He is not talking about the rare cases where a CEO may also be a founder or be CEO for a couple different companies.


Sure.



> Sanders point is in many cases the average CEO makes more in a day or even week than their average worker does in a year.
> 
> The average yearly salary of a CEO in the fortune 500 companies is like $14 or 15 million per year. In those cases those CEOs are making almost 400x their average worker.
> 
> 
> http://time.com/money/5287123/ceo-pay-afl-cio/


In that case, then yeah, I have no problem CEO's making 14-15 millon dollars a year.

If that means they make 400X their workers, then so be it.

What Amazon did is admirable, but if that means my prime membership goes from 119.00 a year to 149.00 a year next year, then the good will won't last long.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I just wanted clarity before giving my opinion
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, then yeah, I have no problem CEO's making 14-15 millon dollars a year.
> 
> If that means they make 400X their workers, then so be it.
> 
> What Amazon did is admirable, but if that means my prime membership goes from 119.00 a year to 149.00 a year next year, then the good will won't last long.



So you have no issue with a CEO making $14 million a year but not paying their workers a living wage? Ok good to know

As for prime going up . why would prime have to go up with workers are being paid a living wage? So you are ok with a CEO making 14 million but complain if the average workers making 15 bucks an hour?

You don't even make any sense

PS if CEOs made a little less and that money went to paying its workers, your prime wouldn't have to go up in your hypothetical.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you have no issue with a CEO making $14 million a year but not paying their workers a living wage? Ok good to know


Nope no issue at all.

is there a problem with making money because you are good at what you do?

And there is a difference between minimum wage and a living wage

https://www.howmoneywalks.com/living-wage-vs-minimum-wage-whats-the-difference/

Read the article, learn a little


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> As for prime going up . why would prime have to go up with workers are being paid a living wage? So you are ok with a CEO making 14 million but complain if the average workers making 15 bucks an hour?
> 
> You don't even make any sense
> 
> PS if CEOs made a little less and that money went to paying its workers, your prime wouldn't have to go up in your hypothetical.


Are you not getting it the first time I said it:

I don't care about someone who couldn't cut it needing to make more money.

if you have a family, you shouldn't have a minimum wage job, period.

minimum wage jobs are built for children to get their start in, and have a family that they can depend on

Yes, i feel no remorse for the 26 year old, that is working full time at Mickey D's or entry level at Amazon, because he doesn't think he can do better.

what the CEO doesn't make a difference to me, because it aint my money anyway.

it doesn't make sense because you feel sorry for those people, well, then if you have a bleeding heart, give them your stuff, you have more than they do, so that would be just as good. 

And how would my prime not go up?

Someone has to pay those workers... and then what happens when the people make 15 want a raise... because they are now making the minimum, so you raise them to 18

then what about the $18 an hour workers, so you raise them to 21

then the $21 an hour workers.. and so one and so forth.

Where does this money magically come from?

Just the CEO? Doubt it.

billionaires don't become billionaires because they like to lose money


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Nope no issue at all.
> 
> is there a problem with making money because you are good at what you do?
> 
> And there is a difference between minimum wage and a living wage
> 
> https://www.howmoneywalks.com/living-wage-vs-minimum-wage-whats-the-difference/
> 
> Read the article, learn a little


Nice strawman article since we were never talking about the minimum wage.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't care about someone who couldn't cut it needing to make more money.
> 
> if you have a family, you shouldn't have a minimum wage job, period.
> 
> minimum wage jobs are built for children to get their start in, and have a family that they can depend on
> 
> Yes, i feel no remorse for the 26 year old, that is working full time at Mickey D's or entry level at Amazon, because he doesn't think he can do better.


Who is talking about a min. wage, we are talking about a living wage. Stop trying to make a strawman argument. And working at Amazon should give you a living wage. Amazon is not McDonalds, so it should not pay like it is.

You don't think an entry level job at a huge corp like Amazon should give a living wage? How does that even make sense?




DMD Mofomagic said:


> what the CEO doesn't make a difference to me, because it aint my money anyway.
> 
> it doesn't make sense because you feel sorry for those people, well, then if you have a bleeding heart, give them your stuff, you have more than they do, so that would be just as good.
> 
> And how would my prime not go up?
> 
> Someone has to pay those workers... and then what happens when the people make 15 want a raise... because they are now making the minimum, so you raise them to 18


someone has to pay those workers? Amazon makes billions they can afford it. The whole reasoning for them giving their average workers more money was because of how much Amazon makes

*Also Trumps tax cuts were supposed to pay for these types pay raises so nothing should go up like prime. That is why Trump claimed he gave them right
*




DMD Mofomagic said:


> hen what about the $18 an hour workers, so you raise them to 21
> 
> then the $21 an hour workers.. and so one and so forth.
> 
> Where does this money magically come from?
> 
> Just the CEO? Doubt it.
> 
> billionaires don't become billionaires because they like to lose money


What about the $18 an hour workers they wouldn't need to be changed. You are just making up stuff now.

Well the money comes from Trumps tax cuts he gave them right? That is why he claimed he gave them. Are you going to deny that?

Also since you are talking about min wage, the wage should keep up with inflation, and if they did, it would be about $12 an hour which it's not.

Companies making billions can easily pay their workers $12-15.

Also amazon paying its workers and other companies paying their workers more money would make more money because people would have more disposable income and put it back into the economy.

That is how you stimulate the economy but the middle and lower classes making more money.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> We don't need to be enslaved by systems.


I said anarchy doesn't seem better.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nice strawman article since we were never talking about the minimum wage.


Hmmm, seems like we were:



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh and look Jeff Bezos caved to Bernie Sanders and is now giving his workers $15 an hour
> 
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/sanders-praises-jeff-bezos-for-hiking-amazon-minimum-wage-to-15.html
> 
> Bernie Sanders praises Jeff Bezos for hiking Amazon minimum wage to $15
> 
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders praised CEO Jeff Bezos on Tuesday after Amazon announced that it will increase the minimum wage for its workers to $15 per hour for all U.S. employees.
> 
> "It is no secret that I have been a harsh critic of the wage and employment practices of Amazon and its owner Jeff Bezos," Sanders said. "It has been my view that the middle class and working families of this country should not have to subsidize Mr. Bezos, the wealthiest person on Earth, because many of his Amazon employees earned wages that were so low that they were forced to go on government programs like food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing."
> 
> Last month, Sanders introduced legislation named the Bezos Act that would tax corporations for every dollar their low-wage workers receive in government health-care benefits or food stamps.
> 
> The Vermont senator on Tuesday congratulated Bezos "for doing exactly the right thing." Amazon said it will also start advocating for an increase to the federal minimum wage.
> 
> "Today, I want to give credit where credit is due," Sanders said.
> 
> Sanders has been fighting for several years to increase the minimum wage in the United States to $15 per hour. In his statement, Sanders also thanked Amazon workers who reached out to his office asking for support fighting for a minimum wage hike.
> 
> The senator said Amazon's announcement, "could well be a shot heard around the world." Sanders called on other profitable companies to make similar moves.
> 
> "Bottom line is that in the richest county in the history of the world, no full-time employee should be living in poverty," Sanders said.
> 
> Bezos thanked Sanders on Twitter and said he "hopes others will join in."



Sanders is a proponent of the $15 minimum wage, correct... so that is a time you were talking about it.



birthday_massacre said:


> Bernies ideas are some of the most popular in the country. 70% of Americans support Medicare for all for example. He is the most popular politician in the country because his ideas are so well received.
> 
> Jeff Bezos just made a *$15 min wage* for Amazon because of Bernie Sanders.
> 
> You need to start using facts


There it is again



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah that is why now he says it like no CEO should make 1000x that of their average employee. Basically saying that the average *workers wages should keep up with the top CEO, which I would hope everyone can agree with, Bezos did since he finally set at $15 min wage for Amazon, so that is a start*


There it is again

So that's 3 times you have mentioned minimum wage in this thread.

But then you changed it to living wage, at the end. Are you saying that Amazon is not giving a living wage now, because the minimum is the $15 you want

Or is the $15 the living wage, and you were just saying Amazon's minimum is fine?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Do non-billionaire owners of small businesses with tighter margins have to comply with paying living wages too?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Who is talking about a min. wage, we are talking about a living wage. Stop trying to make a strawman argument. And working at Amazon should give you a living wage. Amazon is not McDonalds, so it should not pay like it is.


I just showed you here you were 3 times.

And Bernie Sanders wants a $15 an hour minimum wage, are you denying that?



> You don't think an entry level job at a huge corp like Amazon should give a living wage? How does that even make sense?


No I don't. Do you know what entry level is?

It means jobs that you get to gain experience to get better jobs, that's why it is a minimum wage, and not a maximum one.



> someone has to pay those workers? Amazon makes billions they can afford it. The whole reasoning for them giving their average workers more money was because of how much Amazon makes


Yes, someone has to pay those workers.

You think the money is coming strictly out of Jeff Bezos' pocket?

Do you work for a living.. do you think the job fairy just comes and gives you a paycheck?

Money has to come from other places, that's why people create budgets



> *Also Trumps tax cuts were supposed to pay for these types pay raises so nothing should go up like prime. That is why Trump claimed he gave them right
> *



We aren't talking about Trump, we aretalking about Amazon and the minimum wage, stay focused



> What about the $18 an hour workers they wouldn't need to be changed. You are just making up stuff now.


Ok, I will put this down again, because you don't want to get it

If entry level is $15 an hour, what does the level above entry level get? And the level above that? and the level above that, and above that?

You would be ok with the guy below you getting a raise, but you don't? That would be ok with you?



> Well the money comes from Trumps tax cuts he gave them right? That is why he claimed he gave them. Are you going to deny that?


I am going to deny I said anything about Trump. Stay on track.



> Also since you are talking about min wage, the wage should keep up with inflation, and if they did, it would be about $12 an hour which it's not.


So the 15 year old kid at McDonald's should be making $12 an hour... that's not far off the $10 that I think is fair, so I am not going to argue that



> Companies making billions can easily pay their workers $12-15.


Yes they can, just not entry level workers... that's where we disagree



> Also amazon paying its workers and other companies paying their workers more money would make more money because people would have more disposable income and put it back into the economy.


So, people who are bad with money get more money to be bad with.

Let me let you in on a lesson you obviously have never learned:

It's not about the money you earn, it's the money you keep"

This is why you have broke professional athletes, and broke CEO's because if you are bad with money $15 an hour ain't going to be what saves you.



> That is how you stimulate the economy but the middle and lower classes making more money.


So you want to give the middle class more money to blow on stupid shit?

Got it


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Sanders is a proponent of the $15 minimum wage, correct... so that is a time you were talking about it.



I was not talking about a $15 min wage with you lol

And WTF are you talking about, Bernie Sanders got Jeff Bezos to give HIS WORKERs $15 an an hour. That is not the federal minimum wage.

You can't even be honest.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> There it is again


yeah FOR HIS COMPANY NOT THE FEDERAL MIN. WAGE which is what you are talking about when you say McDs workers should not get $15 an hour for fastfood.

Jeff is AMAZON

There it is again

So that's 3 times you have mentioned minimum wage in this thread.

But then you changed it to living wage, at the end. Are you saying that Amazon is not giving a living wage now, because the minimum is the $15 you want

Or is the $15 the living wage, and you were just saying Amazon's minimum is fine?

WTF are you talking about, Amazon changed their entery level pay to $15 an hour, you are tallking about the federal min wage and claimed that is what we are talking about and why you pointed to min wage vs iving wage in that article.

You do understand just because Amazon is now giving $15 an hour nothing changes for the rest of the country.





DMD Mofomagic said:


> So the 15 year old kid at McDonald's should be making $12 an hour... that's not far off the $10 that I think is fair, so I am not going to argue that


yes min wage should be $12 at least for people working party time at McDs in HS or college.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yes they can, just not entry level workers... that's where we disagree


LOL if you dont think billion dollar companies can pay entry-level workers $15 an hour and still make billions. Espeically the people making at the top take a small pay cut if they don't want to cut into their bottom line



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I am going to deny I said anything about Trump. Stay on track.


LOL way to deflect the way they would be paying for it with Trump tax cuts



DMD Mofomagic said:


> So, people who are bad with money get more money to be bad with.
> 
> Let me let you in on a lesson you obviously have never learned:
> 
> It's not about the money you earn, it's the money you keep"
> 
> This is why you have broke professional athletes, and broke CEO's because if you are bad with money $15 an hour ain't going to be what saves you.


yes it is about the money you earn if you don't earn enough to stay afloat you are screwed and that is the point people like you miss
if you are working two jobs and still cant pay your bills, basic bills, something is broken. And its a joke you dont think an entry level professional job should pay at least $15 an hour




DMD Mofomagic said:


> So you want to give the middle class more money to blow on stupid shit?
> 
> Got it


yet another deflection lol


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I was not talking about a $15 min wage with you lol
> 
> And WTF are you talking about, Bernie Sanders got Jeff Bezos to give HIS WORKERs $15 an an hour. That is not the federal minimum wage.
> 
> You can't even be honest.


I must have gotten confused by all the time you said $15 minimum

And you are saying that Bernie Sanders isn't asking for the federal wage to be $15, because that's what I said, and you said that's dishonest.

Just want to clarify that



> yeah FOR HIS COMPANY NOT THE FEDERAL MIN. WAGE which is what you are talking about when you say McDs workers should not get $15 an hour for fastfood.


So you don't support Sanders' Fight for $15... because that would be a federal minimum wage




> WTF are you talking about, Amazon changed their entery level pay to $15 an hour, you are tallking about the federal min wage and claimed that is what we are talking about and why you pointed to min wage vs iving wage in that article.


Let me phrase i another way:

You acknowledge that a living wage, and a minimum wage are different

Do you think the federal minimum wage should be $15 an hour?



> You do understand just because Amazon is now giving $15 an hour nothing changes for the rest of the country.


Except that Bernie's rallying cry is it to change for the rest of the country... do you agree with that?




> yes min wage should be $12 at least for people working party time at McDs in HS or college.


Ok, so you don't agree with a $15 an hour minimum wage, just that entry level at certain corporations should be $15

But that still changes the marketplace

Wal-Mart is a company that makes billions, should they be $15? And if they should be, what is stopping any 15-21 year old kid just going there instead of McDonald's?



> LOL if you dont think billion dollar companies can pay entry-level workers $15 an hour and still make billions. Espeically the people making at the top take a small pay cut if they don't want to cut into their bottom line


You seem to not be understanding, that I think very lowly of someone who has a family and works an entry level job.

If you did things the right way, and started working in HS/College, there is no reason you need an entry level job when you would need to sustain you own income. 

I stopped making minimum wage at 17 years old, there is no reason anyone over 23 should be making it 



> LOL way to deflect the way they would be paying for it with Trump tax cuts


Yes, because we weren't talking about Trump tax cuts, you didn't acknowledge my point about grownups making minimum wage, I am not wasting time talking to you about Trump



> yes it is about the money you earn if you don't earn enough to stay afloat you are screwed and that is the point people like you miss
> if you are working two jobs and still cant pay your bills, basic bills, something is broken. And its a joke you dont think an entry level professional job should pay at least $15 an hour


This is what poor people say.

If you are working two jobs and can't pay your bills, you need less bills.

What's broken is you.

My grandmother got divorced and stayed in a 1 bedroom apartment with my mom and Aunt for 7 years, working for a better life

Don't try to make me feel sorry for anyone

Learn a trade, better yourself, there is financial aid, and things out there.

Elon Musk talked about working 100 hours a week, when everyone does 40, he earned his money.

Nothing is stopping anyone from going to do those things, you want people to be lazy, you want them to be dependent, you want them to be stuck

If you can't figure out how to make shit work on 11 an hour, then what is 15 going to do?

Don't live beyond your means, invest in yourself, and don't stop learning, someone taught me these things at 19 years old, and I made good doing it.

Like I said bleeding heart, you get a paycheck, before paying your bills, help someone pay there's, I am not in the business of charity for people who don't want to do anything about their situation




> yet another deflection lol


Only because you realized how dumb it is what you said.

"If people made more money, they would put the money back into the products"

Well, then what is the point of even giving them the money, you think them buying more stupid shit helps their situation?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I must have gotten confused by all the time you said $15 minimum
> 
> And you are saying that Bernie Sanders isn't asking for the federal wage to be $15, because that's what I said, and you said that's dishonest.
> 
> Just want to clarify that



Bernie Sanders want a min. a wage of $15 an hour.

We were talking about the $15 that Amazon workers got. Bezos said $15 will be the min. that Amazon will pay his workers then you started talking about fed min wage. That is where the disconnect started.
I was talking about this pay increase but you were implying I was talking about a $15 fed min wage, which I wasn't in those examples you quoted.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> So you don't support Sanders' Fight for $15... because that would be a federal minimum wage


You are talking about two different things with what Amazon got and Bernie wanting a federal min wage. Do I support his fight for $15 yes for full time workers.

Again you are trying to combine two different things. 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Let me phrase i another way:
> 
> You acknowledge that a living wage, and a minimum wage are different
> 
> Do you think the federal minimum wage should be $15 an hour?


Yes a living wage and the fed. min wage are two different things. What I am saying is, if you have a full-time job, it should be a living wage, including entry level jobs.

Again yes the fed. min wage should be #15 an hour for a full time job, if its your career. The min wage for full time jobs should be a living wage.


If you are working a part time job as a kid in HS or college, then no it does not have to be $15 an your, it should be more like $12 which is what it would be if it kept up with inflation.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Except that Bernie's rallying cry is it to change for the rest of the country... do you agree with that?


Which a huge percent of the country agrees with. I answered the question a few times in my last two comments in this new post, I will just refer back to that.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Ok, so you don't agree with a $15 an hour minimum wage, just that entry level at certain corporations should be $15
> 
> But that still changes the marketplace
> 
> Wal-Mart is a company that makes billions, should they be $15? And if they should be, what is stopping any 15-21 year old kid just going there instead of McDonald's?


if you work full time at walmart it should be at least $15 if you are part time then $12, No one in the country should make less than $12 even at McD or Walmart.
Not sure this will cause issues where these companies just won't make people full time to save from paying $15 to full time but they do that shit anyways to not pay insurance.



QUOTE=DMD Mofomagic;76244792]


*You seem to not be understanding, that I think very lowly of someone who has a family and works an entry level job.*

If you did things the right way, and started working in HS/College, there is no reason you need an entry level job when you would need to sustain you own income. 

I stopped making minimum wage at 17 years old, there is no reason anyone over 23 should be making it 


[/QUOTE]

What that makes you not a very nice person. As for people doing things the right way they shouldnt be working entry level jobs , that is just bullshit. Somethings they have to settle for that to have a job again because of a layoff or some other stuff. Its pretty said you would even say shit like that




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yes, because we weren't talking about Trump tax cuts, you didn't acknowledge my point about grownups making minimum wage, I am not wasting time talking to you about Trump




Of course you wont waste your time because my point refuted your BS about prime having to go up since amazon will be payign more. The whole point of the Trump tax cuts was so companies like Amazon can pay their workers more.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> This is what poor people say.
> 
> If you are working two jobs and can't pay your bills, you need less bills.
> 
> What's broken is you.
> 
> My grandmother got divorced and stayed in a 1 bedroom apartment with my mom and Aunt for 7 years, working for a better life
> 
> Don't try to make me feel sorry for anyone
> 
> Learn a trade, better yourself, there is financial aid, and things out there.
> 
> Elon Musk talked about working 100 hours a week, when everyone does 40, he earned his money.
> 
> Nothing is stopping anyone from going to do those things, you want people to be lazy, you want them to be dependent, you want them to be stuck
> 
> If you can't figure out how to make shit work on 11 an hour, then what is 15 going to do?
> 
> Don't live beyond your means, invest in yourself, and don't stop learning, someone taught me these things at 19 years old, and I made good doing it.
> 
> Like I said bleeding heart, you get a paycheck, before paying your bills, help someone pay there's, I am not in the business of charity for people who don't want to do anything about their situation



Just more bullshit from you. You live in a fantays world, you really should try living in reality.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Only because you realized how dumb it is what you said.
> 
> "If people made more money, they would put the money back into the products"
> 
> Well, then what is the point of even giving them the money, you think them buying more stupid shit helps their situation?


The only one making dumb comments here is you like your last paragraph.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So in dystopian America, apparently the president has now given himself the power to push political propaganda directly on your private cell phones.

But yeah. One of the aspects of a dystopian society is that there are always brainless drones who refuse to accept that it's a dystopia.

Obama made propaganda legal and Trump is planning to actually use that legality to pedal his propaganda. 

Welcome to the dystopia.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> So in dystopian America, apparently the president has now given himself the power to push political propaganda directly on your private cell phones.
> 
> But yeah. One of the aspects of a dystopian society is that there are always brainless drones who refuse to accept that it's a dystopia.
> 
> Obama made propaganda legal and Trump is planning to actually use that legality to pedal his propaganda.
> 
> Welcome to the dystopia.


Luckily I have an iphone and pretty sure I can block that shit ha


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Luckily I have an iphone and pretty sure I can block that shit ha


Sadly you're mistaken.

Big Brother made it illegal for their propaganda to be blocked well in advance.









Kim Jong Un and the North Korean Big Brother has nothing on the American Big Brother. If DPRK is Big Brother, then USA is Big Daddy.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes a living wage and the fed. min wage are two different things. What I am saying is, if you have a full-time job, it should be a living wage, including entry level jobs.


And I am saying that if your full time job is a cashier at McDonald's or Burger King or (in Bezos' case) Whole Foods, then something is wrong

Those are entry level positions for experience, it's pretty easy to make more than $15 an hour with just even a minimal skill set



> Again yes the fed. min wage should be #15 an hour for a full time job, if its your career. The min wage for full time jobs should be a living wage.


But how do we determine that? 

That is a personal preference of what you consider a career, that's a vague description

Are you saying that being a picker at Amazon should be considered a career? You do know what the entry level jobs are at Amazon, right?



> If you are working a part time job as a kid in HS or college, then no it does not have to be $15 an your, it should be more like $12 which is what it would be if it kept up with inflation.


So you are saying that there should be two minimum wages?

And what about high school dropouts... whee would they fall into this category?

This is why I support no minimum wage, find a job, and negotiate your worth, should be easy to do, all minimum wage does is give people a barometer for failure




> Which a huge percent of the country agrees with. I answered the question a few times in my last two comments in this new post, I will just refer back to that.


Yes, because the majority of the country don't want to do the work necessary to get out of it.

It sounds like a great plan on paper, because the people who are struggling love to think more money solves their problems.

It isn't news to say the majority of people want more stuff for nothing



> if you work full time at walmart it should be at least $15 if you are part time then $12, No one in the country should make less than $12 even at McD or Walmart.
> Not sure this will cause issues where these companies just won't make people full time to save from paying $15 to full time but they do that shit anyways to not pay insurance.


Well, you kind of just answered your own rebuttal there


*You seem to not be understanding, that I think very lowly of someone 




What that makes you not a very nice person. As for people doing things the right way they shouldnt be working entry level jobs , that is just bullshit. Somethings they have to settle for that to have a job again because of a layoff or some other stuff. Its pretty said you would even say shit like that

Click to expand...

I am a very nice person. I give what I can, and donate, and give my time to others.

That doesn't mean I can't want better for someone, we should all strive to be the best version of ourselves, that means looking in the mirror and acknowledging our faults.

Not expecting more handouts... remember the adage about giving a man a fish and teaching him

It's nice to give, its more effective to teach

Also, I hve been laid off before, if you do things the right way (not blow money, you know focusing on what you keep instead of what you earn) you should have the ability to live for a few months without work

Then if you have the right skill set, you should be able to find a job. Especially with unemployment at your disposal.

Even then there are so many jobs you can do that dont require skills (Uber, Lyft, Instacart) that is a shitty excuse as well.

I had a friend who made $1500 a week doing Uber, he had to work 12 hours a day to do it. He didn't need to go to McDonald's because he lost his job.

You are the not nice person, because you want people to stay complacent, and just give them things, how is that helping?





Of course you wont waste your time because my point refuted your BS about prime having to go up since amazon will be payign more. The whole point of the Trump tax cuts was so companies like Amazon can pay their workers more.

Click to expand...

What point? I don't remember bringing Trump into this.

I have been pretty consistent in saying that a $15 minimum wage is stupid, I would prefer to have none, but $10 works for me





Just more bullshit from you. You live in a fantays world, you really should try living in reality

Click to expand...

.

Ha you are the one living in a world where everyone is spending money and the economy is booming because we gave them more money.

And you say I live in a fantasy world?

You want two types of minimum wages, and you think it is acceptable for grown people to work a full time job at McDonald's

Yeah, dude I will stay in my reality, it's a lot nicer here.




The only one making dumb comments here is you like your last paragraph.

Click to expand...

Testy aren't we.

I really just have one question:

Do you think a person raising a family should be making the minimum wage?*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Sadly you're mistaken.
> 
> Big Brother made it illegal for their propaganda to be blocked well in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Jong Un and the North Korean Big Brother has nothing on the American Big Brother. If DPRK is Big Brother, then USA is Big Daddy.


Oh that sucks, i thought shuttiing off the govt alerts would do the trick


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh that sucks, i thought shuttiing off the govt alerts would do the trick


I can't even believe this is happening. Good thing I live off the grid. I don't have any cell phone service.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> I can't even believe this is happening. Good thing I live off the grid. I don't have any cell phone service.


Yeah its a joke they are even allowing this. how long before Trump abuses it.

I give it a month


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah its a joke they are even allowing this. how long before Trump abuses it.
> 
> I give it a month


FEMA is acting like there are laws preventing it from being abused. 

:lmao 

Like they've been preparing/planning this since prior to 2006 and they're not going to try to normalize it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I will mark though if it just says "covfefe". :mark:


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Looks like they're are retracted on the Seth Rich theories.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ashington-times-retracts-false-story-dnc-aide


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Gonna go ahead and say there will be nothing political or remotely "dystopian" about any presidential alerts that get sent out.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The dystopia bit is great. Pls don't stop it just yet.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Saw this on my local news.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/brian-kemps-office-to-be-sued-for-purging-700000-voters-from-georgia-rolls/85-600064018



> *Brian Kemp's office to be sued for purging 700,000 voters from Georgia rolls*
> 
> In a response, Kemp says Georgia has never used data from the Crosscheck Program to conduct list maintenance in this state.
> 
> ATLANTA -- According to a release, members of the SCLC, Rainbow-PUSH Coalition, the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, and the New Georgia Project are planning to join with others to file a federal lawsuit against Georgia's Secretary of State Brian Kemp.
> 
> Kemp's office is accused of using a racially-biased methodology for removing as many as 700,000 legitimate voters from the state's voter rolls over the past two years.
> 
> The suit claims that the secretary of state's office has not sent notice of the removal to voters. The group says that at a Tuesday news conference they will publish a database containing each of the names of the voters removed since 2017, so that those voters may re-register prior to the state's October 9 deadline.
> 
> The group says the lawsuit was initiated by journalist Greg Palast as part of his research for Rolling Stone magazine. Other similar federal suits will be filed against other state officials around the nation in conjunction with the Georgia suit. They claim that during his research, Palast uncovered a so-called 'purge list' from what is called the 'Crosscheck Program' allegedly supplied to the secretary of state's office by Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State.
> 
> Some critics have said Kobach has worked to implement some of the most stringent voter ID laws in the United States, and has worked to make voting much more difficult for minorities.
> 
> Tuesday afternoon, Kemp released a statement refuting the research behind the lawsuit. He insisted that no voters had been removed from the state's rolls as a result of any sort of 'purge list,' as claimed by Palast.
> 
> "This threatened lawsuit has no merit. To be crystal clear, Georgia has never used data from the Crosscheck Program to conduct list maintenance in any capacity," Kemp said in his statement. "Zero voters have been removed from the rolls based on Crosscheck data in this state. Greg Palast is completely blind to this indisputable fact in his pursuit of a sensationalist headline. Real journalists have already reported that Georgia does not use this data for list maintenance. Frankly, Mr. Palast should be embarrassed, and any credibility that he had left is now completely destroyed."
> 
> In addition to his position as Georgia's Secretary of State, Kemp is the Republican nominee for governor and is running against Democrat Stacey Abrams in the November 6 general election.


The reason this is big story here in Georgia is that Kemp and Abrams are in a virtual tie in the polls, so every vote counts.

I will say it's never sat right with me that someone can be in charge of securing their own election or one they are connected to like Kemp is and that goes for any party affiliation. Just leaves way too much open to malfeasance. Not saying that's what happened here, but it it easy to see why there could be suspicion. 

If they do prove that 700,000 eligible voters were purged with no notification, then there needs to be an extension on re-registering. Tuesday is the deadline here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

GOP already trying to fix the midterms


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Something from the UK for all of you to enjoy.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> So in dystopian America, apparently the president has now given himself the power to push political propaganda directly on your private cell phones.
> 
> But yeah. One of the aspects of a dystopian society is that there are always brainless drones who refuse to accept that it's a dystopia.
> 
> Obama made propaganda legal and Trump is planning to actually use that legality to pedal his propaganda.
> 
> Welcome to the dystopia.


I don't consider this dystopian in the least, granted we'll have to see how it's used.

The Government has been chipping away at freedom and pushing propaganda for a long time now. I would say the 60's is where it took off but I'd say the early 1900's right around prohibition is where it really started.

The Government War on booze was probably something the Government didn't expect to be so violent, costly and seen the average citizen rise up for themselves. During the Depression and Prohibition is when people were at their lowest yet did not submit to Government oppression.

All you have to do is look at every major event and see how the Government took a little more power, limited people, made people dependent on them, how distracted people from Wars, shady dealings and the removals of freedom. 

Regardless of who is in power, be it Democrat or Republican they've slowly eroded away the country to the point that we don't know what to believe. The Government lies to us, the MSM lies to us and is owned by corporations who push their own agendas, special interest groups use civil unrest to line their pockets and control people, people are addicted to cheap food and Government handouts and are so scared of saying anything they just take it. 

The entire thing is fucked! One time people fought to vote, now it's pointless, people fought for unions and now those unions are all corrupt, people fought against Government tyranny and now those people wish it upon others, people fought for civil rights and now they fight for a select few. We're not a dystopia, we're worse. We're a tribal feudal system with people pushing to get in front of the line so they can get it raw from Uncle Sam. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> We're not a dystopia, we're worse. We're a tribal feudal system with people pushing to get in front of the line so they can get it raw from Uncle Sam. :laugh:


Welcome to the dark side. I agree that America is worse than a dystopia. 

People's impression of a dystopia is that everyone is destitute and poor and that the world is crumbling. But in every Dystopia there are haves and have nots. It's crumbling for the many, but the few benefit and live lives where they are born into wealth. There are a few chances for the poor to break their destitution. It's like a game for the rich. Prove your worth to join the rich and the wealthy. 

People immediately go into science fiction to imagine what a dystopia would _look _like. They're only _looking _at the surface of what artists have imagined, but why would a real dystopia look exactly like some artists imagination?






Also, should we keep on reimagining the conditions of a dystopia to stop accounting for the problems of today just so that we can keep ourselves from acknowledging it?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Welcome to the dark side. I agree that America is worse than a dystopia.
> 
> People's impression of a dystopia is that everyone is destitute and poor and that the world is crumbling. But in every Dystopia there are haves and have nots. It's crumbling for the many, but the few benefit and live lives where they are born into wealth. There are a few chances for the poor to break their destitution. It's like a game for the rich. Prove your worth to join the rich and the wealthy.
> 
> People immediately go into science fiction to imagine what a dystopia would _look _like. They're only _looking _at the surface of what artists have imagined, but why would a real dystopia look exactly like some artists imagination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, should we keep on reimagining the conditions of a dystopia to stop accounting for the problems of today just so that we can keep ourselves from acknowledging it?


Artist depictions of such are OTT anyways, I'd say 1984 is pretty spot on with a lot going on. Not as blatant but it's there. 

Unlike stories, some girl with a bow isn't going to change anything. As long as people fight among each other because "MUH SKIN COLOR/IDENTITY" and for Government scraps, we'll always be cogs. :laugh:


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Unlike stories, some girl with a bow isn't going to change anything.


Yeah, YA dystopia novels are such tripe. Sorry youngsters, you're not going to be Katness by "resisting". You're more likely to be Winston Smith or John the Savage.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

We're living in a society where you can be thrown in jail by the state for failing to return a state owned library book ... ... Where people get fined or arrested for feeding homeless people ... where little girls need permits to sell lemonade ... where you need permits to rebuild your own fence after a hurricane. 

This is not even talking about the bigger problems where the vast majority of American society is one illness from a lifetime of debt etc etc. Where hundreds of millions of people are diagnosed with fake mental illnesses created by a bunch of paid for "professionals" in order to make a buck etc etc. 

So please don't tell me that this is not dystopian. You're just not putting two and two together.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> (CNN)Two pieces of mail delivered to the Pentagon mail facility on Monday have initially tested positive for ricin, according to a US defense official.
> The mail facility is in a separate building on the grounds of the Pentagon and the piece of mail which tested positive never entered the Pentagon building. All mail delivered to the Pentagon Monday was put into quarantine, according to the official.
> The FBI and the Pentagon Force Protection Agency are responding and further testing is expected to be done by the FBI, the officials said.
> Ricin is a highly toxic compound that is extracted from castor beans and has been used in terror plots. It can be used in powder, pellet, mist or acid form.
> 
> If ingested, it causes nausea, vomiting and internal bleeding of the stomach and intestines, followed by failure of the liver, spleen and kidneys, and death by collapse of the circulatory system.
> This story is breaking and will be updated.


https://web.archive.org/web/20181002170714/https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/pentagon-ricin-mail/index.html


----------



## Draykorinee

Sen. Lindsey Graham: "If a Republican had said...'We're trying to hold the seat open to get past the midterms, so we can take power back,' the Republican who said that couldn't go five feet in this town without having 100 reporters in their face."

....did you guys not hold it open for a year?

This is why politics is so shit.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The Republicans delayed by holding the elected majority in Congress. The Democrats are delaying by trying to destroy a man's life, undermining the foundational principles of our legal system, and whipping half the country into a frenzy believing the other half supports rapists.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The Republicans delayed by holding the elected majority in Congress. The Democrats are delaying by trying to destroy a man's life, undermining the foundational principles of our legal system, and whipping half the country into a frenzy believing the other half supports rapists.


LOL at the Dems trying to destroy his life when he has lied over and over again under oath. And all his friends are coming out saying what he said about himself is just not true. You are acting like you know for a fact he did not do these assaults. 

Maybe if he was more honest, I could find him credible. But sure all these women are lying about sexual assault, just like all the women are lying about Trump right


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

All the women were lying about Trump. :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> All the women were lying about Trump. :draper2


and this is why I can't take you seriously


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> All the women were lying about Trump. :draper2


I guess all the women were lying about Cosby too. 
Also


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The Republicans delayed by holding the elected majority in Congress. The Democrats are delaying by trying to destroy a man's life, undermining the foundational principles of our legal system, and whipping half the country into a frenzy believing the other half supports rapists.


Utterly utterly irrelevant to the quote from Graham, you're so stuck in your republican bubble you can't even call a spade a spade and say he;s being a hypocrite. Pathetic.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Genking48 said:


> Alright then. Here we go (again) guys!
> 
> I think this came up earlier in the year. But I guess the politicians now have to come clean. Do they support this or will they go against the opinions of the majority (83 per cent of Danes support an age limit on circumcising boys according to polls).


I agree with this too.

The only instance I think it's necessary for a minor to undergo circumcision is if there is a legitimate health reason/concern which has been advised by a doctor, which does happen. But for religious reasons? Absolutely not.

Keep in mind also, I usually fall on the side of religious freedom but that's because I believe in freedom of association. So to give a classic example, I believe that a religious institution has a right to not conduct a same sex wedding if it goes against their beliefs. I don't believe they should be forced to conduct the same sex wedding against their will.

But in this case, we are talking about a minor being forced to undergo circumcision by a parent. That is coercion, that is not voluntary in the slightest. I would go as far as to say it is barbaric. What reason is there for a child to undergo such a cruel procedure? And no "grooming" or "cleanliness" is not an answer.

So yeah, kudos to those who petitioned and to the Danish government for putting it under consideration.





Vic Capri said:


> I regret voting for Obama the 2nd time.
> 
> - Vic


If I were an American, I would have voted for Obama the first time in 2008 even in hindsight mainly due to his anti-Iraq war stance (which turned out to be false). McCain was so bad in most areas that there is no way I could ever support him.

The 2nd time around though? My views had already changed by then (though they weren't exactly the same as now) and I had wised up.

#RonPaulRevolution.


As far as Bernie goes and this might surprise some, but I have to agree with @birthday_massacre and @Draykorinee (though I'd say me and Dray do agree on a number of issues   ), both on the radical point and the point about him in a head to head versus Trump. Whilst I don't think it would be as definitive as in 2016 for various reasons, I do think Bernie would beat Trump in 2020 if he were the nominee, and quite significantly too. I have to be realistic looking at the climate in American politics and BM and Dray are right on this topic in my opinion. You have to also remember that Trump would not by this stage have that outsider image looking to shake things up. He is very much the establishment now. Bernie at least still to a degree has a bit of an outsider image going into 2020 though we will disagree on to what extent, sorry BM .

As far as Bernie being "radical", I think to a certain extent this is something only a European would understand as snobby as it sounds. The overton window in the US is much more to the right than it is in Europe, so what sounds extreme in America is pretty normal in Europe. Keep in mind, I say this as someone who falls quite significantly towards the right in European overton terms. I disagree with most if not all of Bernie's economic policies but at least on paper in terms of what Bernie is proposing, it's not really radical at all. I'm not going to say it is simply because I think he is wrong on a number of issues.

The problem with Bernie and this is where BM is going to hate me is how he frames himself. Bernie sees himself as a Democratic Socialist but the policies he is advocating for are very much of a social democrat. He has and so has his supporters have mistakenly suggested that the Nordic countries that they have advocated for are socialist. That is simply not true. All of the Nordic countries are market economies and have very capitalistic policies. They are pro-business and most of them are low on tax when it comes to business or corporation tax as it's called. They have extensive social welfare programs, universal healthcare and some go as far as free universal college but that is far away from nationalizing entire sectors of the economy for example. 

Until Trump's tax policy, the Nordic countries had lower nominal corporation tax rates than the United States. Even now I believe, the last time it was measured, the Nordic countries have a higher degree of economic freedom than the United States. Though if that has changed, I'm more than happy to read about it.

Point being, the Nordic countries are pro-capitalism and markets but are also in favour of extensive safety nets and public programs. They are social democracies, not socialist countries. And that's where Bernie confuses people by calling himself a socialist.

At the same time, we have evidence of Bernie also praising Venezuela and saying that bread lines are a good thing for a country. Now to be fair and to put things into context, this was said in the 90's. So it is possible that Bernie has evolved his views since then. I'm not disputing the possibility. The question becomes, are the policies that Bernie is advocating for what he truly believes is the ideal system or is he only proposing what he thinks is realistic for the public to get behind? This I'm unsure of, much more so than Jeremy Corbyn for example where it is clear that if he could he would nationalize every economic sector under the government but knows he could never get elected on such a platform. Dray will appreciate what I'm saying I think .

I do think Bernie overall is at least more principled than Corbyn so I'll cut him a little slack for that, even if I do think he's been a cuck on the issue of Russia and the DNC hacks .

If the Democrats have Bernie or Tulsi as their presidential nominee, I think they'll take power in 2020. If they nominate someone like Booker, Maxine Waters or Warren then I think we get a 2nd Trump term.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Neither Bernie or Tulsi will be president any time soon, and Bernie will never be president. He's 5 years older than Trump (77) and looks at least 10 years older. He was seen as too old in 2016, it'll be even worse in 2020. 

Tulsi was smeared by her own party for meeting with Assad. She'd likely get the Ron Paul treatment if she tried to run.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> Bernie at least still to a degree has a bit of an outsider image going into 2020 though we will disagree on to what extent, sorry BM .


The degree to how much of an outsider he is is debatable for sure, but the fact that he is to some degree is a huge plus in his column vs someone like Corey Booker for example.




DOPA said:


> As far as Bernie being "radical", I think to a certain extent this is something only a European would understand as snobby as it sounds. The overton window in the US is much more to the right than it is in Europe, so what sounds extreme in America is pretty normal in Europe. Keep in mind, I say this as someone who falls quite significantly towards the right in European overton terms. I disagree with most if not all of Bernie's economic policies but at least on paper in terms of what Bernie is proposing, it's not really radical at all. I'm not going to say it is simply because I think he is wrong on a number of issues.


In America, Bernie is not radical to what the American people want, he is radical to the establishment Dems and reps, but that is why he is the most popular politician in the country because he is one of the few that fight for the American people, now if some want to call that radical by all means call that radical. It all depends on what they mean by radical. In this case, think it's being used as a slight but when it fact its a huge positive. 




DOPA said:


> The problem with Bernie and this is where BM is going to hate me is how he frames himself. Bernie sees himself as a Democratic Socialist but the policies he is advocating for are very much of a social democrat. He has and so has his supporters have mistakenly suggested that the Nordic countries that they have advocated for are socialist. That is simply not true. All of the Nordic countries are market economies and have very capitalistic policies. They are pro-business and most of them are low on tax when it comes to business or corporation tax as it's called. They have extensive social welfare programs, universal healthcare and some go as far as free universal college but that is far away from nationalizing entire sectors of the economy for example.


The label Bernie gives himself is really irrelevant since we should just focus on his policies. That is why more important than a semantic argument of what to label it. I think we can both agree on that. TBH I dont care what Bernie labels himself, I care more about what policies he wants.



DOPA said:


> At the same time, we have evidence of Bernie also praising Venezuela and saying that bread lines are a good thing for a country. Now to be fair and to put things into context, this was said in the 90's. So it is possible that Bernie has evolved his views since then. I'm not disputing the possibility. The question becomes, are the policies that Bernie is advocating for what he truly believes is the ideal system or is he only proposing what he thinks is realistic for the public to get behind? This I'm unsure of, much more so than Jeremy Corbyn for example where it is clear that if he could he would nationalize every economic sector under the government but knows he could never get elected on such a platform. Dray will appreciate what I'm saying I think


I dont think Bernie would say anything just to hope to get votes then do a 180 like Trump did, if he did that i would be the first person to call out Bernie for that. I think Bernie truly beileves and wants the things he is advocating for.




DOPA said:


> I do think Bernie overall is at least more principled than Corbyn so I'll cut him a little slack for that, even if I do think he's been a cuck on the issue of Russia and the DNC hacks .
> 
> If the Democrats have Bernie or Tulsi as their presidential nominee, I think they'll take power in 2020. If they nominate someone like Booker, Maxine Waters or Warren then I think we get a 2nd Trump term.



I think Warren would also wipe the floor with Trump but I would much rather Tulsi run. LIke I said before let Warren run and clean up the Treasury dept, she would be perfect for that. If Trump is still there in 2020 which I still doubt, unless HIllary or someone like he runs, I thin the Dems still win. Booker could beat him, but it would be close. But only if they dont let Hillary campaign for them. 

I cringe that Gillum is letting HIllary campagin for him. FFS she is one of the least popular people in the country. Not sure what he wrong with him.


Its shit like that, that will get the GOP 4 more years and possible losses they should be winning in the midterms


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The degree to how much of an outsider he is is debatable for sure, but the fact that he is to some degree is a huge plus in his column vs someone like Corey Booker for example.


Oh yeah, for sure. Can't dispute that.






birthday_massacre said:


> In America, Bernie is not radical to what the American people want, he is radical to the establishment Dems and reps, but that is why he is the most popular politician in the country because he is one of the few that fight for the American people, now if some want to call that radical by all means call that radical. It all depends on what they mean by radical. In this case, think it's being used as a slight but when it fact its a huge positive.


I don't dispute that what he is advocating for is popular at least by the polls that I have seen, keep in mind there's always going to be to a certain degree the shy voter in terms of voting for a more right wing party. It's certainly true in the UK in terms of the Conservatives here and I'm certain it's true for the Republicans. To what extent is certainly something we can debate.

But overall I mean in terms of the current overton window in establishment politics. To give you an example, universal healthcare in Europe is the norm (hell I'm for universal healthcare, I just disagree it should be a monopoly whether private or public which is my issue with Bernie on Single Payer), in the US any form of universal healthcare is left wing.....despite the fact that the Swiss system which is what I would advocate for is considered right wing in European politics.

Does that make sense to you?





birthday_massacre said:


> The label Bernie gives himself is really irrelevant since we should just focus on his policies. That is why more important than a semantic argument of what to label it. I think we can both agree on that. TBH I dont care what Bernie labels himself, I care more about what policies he wants.


I definitely agree regardless of who it is we should focus on their policies more, hence why I have not outright stated that Bernie is only pushing what I think he can get away with. The only reason why I stated that Jeremy Corbyn is doing that is because there is overwhelming evidence that supports it. That isn't the case with Bernie in my opinion at least. The American opinion of what socialism is (both Democrat and Republican by the way) is utterly shit.




birthday_massacre said:


> I dont think Bernie would say anything just to hope to get votes then do a 180 like Trump did, if he did that i would be the first person to call out Bernie for that. I think Bernie truly beileves and wants the things he is advocating for.


Oh don't get me wrong, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying what he is advocating for in public isn't what he believes, I very much believe that he feels those are the right positions to take. What I question is whether or not that is all he is advocating for as far as changing the US is concerned or whether he would rather push the US further to the left i.e more economic interventionism and outright government control of economic sectors.

As I said, I have no evidence to suggest that he does, only past comments from decades ago which he could very easily have changed his view on.







birthday_massacre said:


> I think Warren would also wipe the floor with Trump but I would much rather Tulsi run. LIke I said before let Warren run and clean up the Treasury dept, she would be perfect for that. If Trump is still there in 2020 which I still doubt, unless HIllary or someone like he runs, I thin the Dems still win. Booker could beat him, but it would be close. But only if they dont let Hillary campaign for them.
> 
> I cringe that Gillum is letting HIllary campagin for him. FFS she is one of the least popular people in the country. Not sure what he wrong with him.
> 
> 
> Its shit like that, that will get the GOP 4 more years and possible losses they should be winning in the midterms


The problem with Warren is she mostly says the right things at least in terms of the progressive base (which I disagree with) but her actions and votes say something different. For example, she has consistently voted to increase the defense budget along with Republicans and Corporate Democrats.

One of the few issues I think we agree on is that Defense spending or military spending as it should be called is way too high in the US. Yet Warren has increasingly voted alongside the establishment on this issue. That's just one example.

For me personally, any potential candidate who supports the war machine is an automatic no go. It's a red line for me. If it's not for you then I understand but Warren in my opinion isn't trustworthy. She's lied and gone against her so called principles too many times.

I disagree with your analysis with Booker. He represents too much of the status quo and is not enough change to beat Trump. People in general will go with the status quo in an election if there is not enough at least perceived positive change. You don't get that with him, it's more of the same.

Whilst I hate to say it, I think the Democrats in this particular climate need to go a little more to the left. By that I mean social democracy, not socialism. Which Bernie at least policy wise fits.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> But overall I mean in terms of the current overton window in establishment politics. To give you an example, universal healthcare in Europe is the norm (hell I'm for universal healthcare, I just disagree it should be a monopoly whether private or public which is my issue with Bernie on Single Payer), in the US any form of universal healthcare is left wing.....despite the fact that the Swiss system which is what I would advocate for is considered right wing in European politics.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


if you are saying single payer should be an option, then I agree. You should also be able to get private insurance if you want instead.




DOPA said:


> The problem with Warren is she mostly says the right things at least in terms of the progressive base (which I disagree with) but her actions and votes say something different. For example, she has consistently voted to increase the defense budget along with Republicans and Corporate Democrats.
> 
> One of the few issues I think we agree on is that Defense spending or military spending as it should be called is way too high in the US. Yet Warren has increasingly voted alongside the establishment on this issue. That's just one example.
> 
> For me personally, any potential candidate who supports the war machine is an automatic no go. It's a red line for me. If it's not for you then I understand but Warren in my opinion isn't trustworthy. She's lied and gone against her so called principles too many times.
> 
> I disagree with your analysis with Booker. He represents too much of the status quo and is not enough change to beat Trump. People in general will go with the status quo in an election if there is not enough at least perceived positive change. You don't get that with him, it's more of the same.
> 
> Whilst I hate to say it, I think the Democrats in this particular climate need to go a little more to the left. By that I mean social democracy, not socialism. Which Bernie at least policy wise fits.


Didn't she vote on the passing of the military budget because if that passed the GOP said they would pass something she and the DNC wanted? I could have sworn I read that somewhere but either way, she should be voting no on that and all Dems should be. I agree the military budget is way too high. Its just funny how the GOP claims the US can afford things the DNC wants yet they can spend all this money on the military, when the could cut it in half and still spend more than every other country in the world.

The majority of Americans hate Trump, I can't see Booker being less popular than him. But I wouldn't take my chances with him, because the GOP could beat him. Sanders and Tulsi are the only sure things to win in 2020. And trust me Booker is near the bottom of any list I would ever make.

All these Dems have to do to win is be for single payer, pro-pot for the whole country, anti-war, stricter gun control, money out of poltics, all things the majority of the country want, and they would easily win.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> if you are saying single payer should be an option, then I agree. You should also be able to get private insurance if you want instead.


What I advocate for is a social insurance model which I would recommend you look up. To try and explain it as simply as I can, it is a two or three tier healthcare model where emergency and basic healthcare is fully covered regardless of what your income is. So in this system, you wouldn't have to pay out extortionate amounts for emergency healthcare. However, in a social insurance model, there is also a healthy amount of private healthcare alongside a public insured option. For example, in Germany, 35% of their healthcare is covered by private insurance. In Switzerland and Holland it is closer to 100% private insurance but the difference between those countries and the US is that everyone has universal coverage so those who can't afford insurance are covered either by subsidies or by public insurance.

There should in my opinion be a freedom to choose in terms of healthcare. That is severely lacking in the UK right now for example. 93% of the healthcare market is ran by the NHS in the UK, which is a national health service ran by the government. It is overran by economic inefficiencies, particularly in the winter where more vulnerable people get sick i.e the elderly or the young. This has led to what has been known as the winter crises in the UK where there have been severe shortages of basic resources to cope with the influx. Beds are a classic example. We have the most bed shortages in the entire world with a 40% decline in the number of beds available over a 20 year period.

To be fair and to put it into context, this has been under a system where the hospitals are run by the government which no other 1st world country has been stupid enough to do. Which is what I am currently fighting against most of all. But other problems such as long waiting lists and healthcare rationing occurs in all single payer healthcare systems where the majority of the healthcare market is dominated by one source. This is why I am against the Medicare for All proposal.

The NHS is particularly bad due to mismanagement and the nationalization of the healthcare service. It's gotten so bad that we have outsourced operations to French hospitals. I don't think any other health service have gotten to the level that they need to outsource their own operations to foreign countries :lol.

To be fair, I do feel some sympathy to you because the healthcare debate in both the US and the UK are utterly ridiculous. If you propose any form of universal healthcare in the US, half the country will say you're a raving lefty yet if you propose any form of healthcare away from the NHS here in the UK you're considered a far rightist who wants to take the UK to a completely private healthcare system with no universal coverage. The debate on healthcare in both our countries is mad :lol.

I am not for the current US system, particularly under Obamacare. I think Switzerland, Holland, Singapore and Germany as examples are much better in terms of providing healthcare. I think my own country is just as bad if not worse than the US with healthcare but for different reasons.





birthday_massacre said:


> Didn't she vote on the passing of the military budget because if that passed the GOP said they would pass something she and the DNC wanted? I could have sworn I read that somewhere but either way, she should be voting no on that and all Dems should be. I agree the military budget is way too high.


I have not read that she voted for the bill because the GOP said they would help pass another bill she wanted to go through. Either way, I wouldn't trust politicians who make that sort of proposal and I wouldn't trust anyone who would put aside their supposed principals to simply pass a bill they wanted to be put on the floor. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Its just funny how the GOP claims the US can afford things the DNC wants yet they can spend all this money on the military, when the could cut it in half and still spend more than every other country in the world.


I agree with the hypocrisy. The GOP do have a point on the medicare, medicaid and social security spending, it represents 70% of the budget or what is known as mandatory spending. Currently, the US is over $100 Trillion in terms of unfunded liabilities for all three social programs due to borrowing, social security in particular is in real trouble in terms of being able to fund the promises for pension funds from the government which there are no easy solutions to. That's another area we will disagree on in terms of the role of government.

But you are right that it gives no excuse for the US to spend more on their military than the next 10 to 12 countries combined. Whilst it doesn't really make a difference from what I have seen to the future budgets of medicare, medicaid and social security, it is huge waste of money which could be saved to reduce the deficits for example which have been way too high since the end of the Bush years at the very least. Both Republicans and Democrats have been terrible on fiscal responsibility.



birthday_massacre said:


> The majority of Americans hate Trump, I can't see Booker being less popular than him. But I wouldn't take my chances with him, because the GOP could beat him. Sanders and Tulsi are the only sure things to win in 2020. And trust me Booker is near the bottom of any list I would ever make.
> 
> All these Dems have to do to win is be for single payer, pro-pot for the whole country, anti-war, stricter gun control, money out of poltics, all things the majority of the country want, and they would easily win.


Whilst Trump has been unpopular, polls that I have seen which have been verified by the likes of Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore have shown that the Democrats as a whole have been even more unpopular than Trump. Honestly that has been because they have failed to resist Trump on actual important issues such as foreign policy. They have simply not done enough on policy issues and instead have focused on Russiagate which even if you believe is true which I know you do, the majority of the American people don't care about compared to actual substantive policy issues.

Booker won't win against Trump, I'm only saying this because I'm not American so it doesn't effect me, oppose him at all costs.

I agree with you on Tulsi, Bernie and the issues you laid out. That's the most effective path to Trump leaving the white house. I don't think the DNC will realize it though :lol.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The Republicans delayed by holding the elected majority in Congress. The Democrats are delaying by trying to destroy a man's life, undermining the foundational principles of our legal system, and whipping half the country into a frenzy believing the other half supports rapists.


Garland missed on a promotion basically. He probably still doesn't win even if they take a vote. Brett and his family have had to go into hiding it appears. What is funny to me is that the left has shown no empathy (this being one of the left's big buzzwords) for Brett's wife and children says a lot. Even if one doesn't like Brett, they could show some of the same concern over his families safely that they show for Ford. The Dems are supposed pro female, but to hell with Brett's wife and his little girls.

I can't really support either party. Too many people crave control and seek to control other Americans. I do despise the left more though. They've made it very clear that they hate me. If you're what they see as a straight white male that doesn't want the handouts they offer, they don't really care about you. Part of my appreciates that they're upfront about it, but the other part gets annoyed that they still expect me to vote for them despite their hatred of me. They still feel entitled to my vote. I just find it really bizarre more than anything at this point.

On the other hand, if the winds were blowing in their favor I fear that the right would try to force religion down my throats. I almost view each party as two rebel forces fighting for control of everyone else. Maybe one is slightly worse than the other, but neither one is what I want.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> What I advocate for is a social insurance model which I would recommend you look up. To try and explain it as simply as I can, it is a two or three tier healthcare model where emergency and basic healthcare is fully covered regardless of what your income is. So in this system, you wouldn't have to pay out extortionate amounts for emergency healthcare. However, in a social insurance model, there is also a healthy amount of private healthcare alongside a public insured option. For example, in Germany, 35% of their healthcare is covered by private insurance. In Switzerland and Holland it is closer to 100% private insurance but the difference between those countries and the US is that everyone has universal coverage so those who can't afford insurance are covered either by subsidies or by public insurance.
> 
> There should in my opinion be a freedom to choose in terms of healthcare. That is severely lacking in the UK right now for example. 93% of the healthcare market is ran by the NHS in the UK, which is a national health service ran by the government. It is overran by economic inefficiencies, particularly in the winter where more vulnerable people get sick i.e the elderly or the young. This has led to what has been known as the winter crises in the UK where there have been severe shortages of basic resources to cope with the influx. Beds are a classic example. We have the most bed shortages in the entire world with a 40% decline in the number of beds available over a 20 year period.
> 
> To be fair and to put it into context, this has been under a system where the hospitals are run by the government which no other 1st world country has been stupid enough to do. Which is what I am currently fighting against most of all. But other problems such as long waiting lists and healthcare rationing occurs in all single payer healthcare systems where the majority of the healthcare market is dominated by one source. This is why I am against the Medicare for All proposal.
> 
> The NHS is particularly bad due to mismanagement and the nationalization of the healthcare service. It's gotten so bad that we have outsourced operations to French hospitals. I don't think any other health service have gotten to the level that they need to outsource their own operations to foreign countries .
> 
> To be fair, I do feel some sympathy to you because the healthcare debate in both the US and the UK are utterly ridiculous. If you propose any form of universal healthcare in the US, half the country will say you're a raving lefty yet if you propose any form of healthcare away from the NHS here in the UK you're considered a far rightist who wants to take the UK to a completely private healthcare system with no universal coverage. The debate on healthcare in both our countries is mad .
> 
> I am not for the current US system, particularly under Obamacare. I think Switzerland, Holland, Singapore and Germany as examples are much better in terms of providing healthcare. I think my own country is just as bad if not worse than the US with healthcare but for different reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Well actually 70% of Americans want Medicare for all, it's more than just 50/50/ Even a majority of Republicans want it too. Also didnt Trump claim during the election he was for single payer to replace Obamacare?

How good healthcare in the US depends on what state you live in, blue or red. Because most blue states kept most of Obamacare intact, whereas most red states didn't do all those extensions.

the tiered system you mentioned would be better but what Bernie is looking for is Medicare for all which works great





DOPA said:


> Whilst Trump has been unpopular, polls that I have seen which have been verified by the likes of Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore have shown that the Democrats as a whole have been even more unpopular than Trump. Honestly that has been because they have failed to resist Trump on actual important issues such as foreign policy. They have simply not done enough on policy issues and instead have focused on Russiagate which even if you believe is true which I know you do, the majority of the American people don't care about compared to actual substantive policy issues.
> 
> Booker won't win against Trump, I'm only saying this because I'm not American so it doesn't effect me, oppose him at all costs.
> 
> I agree with you on Tulsi, Bernie and the issues you laid out. That's the most effective path to Trump leaving the white house. I don't think the DNC will realize it though
> 
> 
> 
> .



The sad thing is, the corp. democrats would rather lose to another corp. republican than win with a democrat progressive.
Because sure the American people (middle class and poor) have the most to lose when a REP wins but even if a REP wins the corp. Dems financially still benefit and that is what they care about the most.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Amazon raised wages to $15 bucks an hour. 

Citing tight labor market. But I think that a recent Twitter exchange between Bernie and Bezos bight have something to do with it as well.

Funny though. This still needs to be accounted for inflation. And 350k workers are a drop in the ocean in a country of 160 million odd workers.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


>


I lived in halls of residents with 40 other nursing students, if you put any single one of them, even the ones I didn't socialise with I could tell you whether they were flat out drunk often or not. Which is why this mans testimony is credible. The girls I lived with in particular I could recall.

Brett lied under oath.

Does that make him a sexual predator who abused Ford, no, but it does make him a perjurer and not fit for the highest office. Get rid of him, get someone else who is just as conservative, there are a ton of better options (Well, for Republicans, they're all shit to me!), and move this circus on.

This is highly damaging to both sides, you only have to see how people responded to Trump mocking a potential sexual abuse victim to see how low politics has come. 

Trump: Ford was a highly compelling credible witness
Trump a week later: Uses Ford as a political rally punchline.

Gross.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Can we just put all the politicians into a giant meat grinder?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Lol. Like Democrats won't accuse everyone of being a rapist from here on out. Who haven't they accused of sexism, racism, fascism, and anything under the sun in the last 30 years. 
When will people wake up and recognize that the democrats entire platform is to call everyone else evil.

Bush was once a racist. McCain was once a racist. Now that their racist slander isn't working so they'v egone directly to calling people rapists.

Next phase of Democrat politics. Call everyone a pedophile after they stop receiving the political beneift of calling people rapists. 

These people have 0 integrity and Americans who support them are part of the problem of perpetually keeping democrats in power. 

Even someone like BM whose own candidate was screwed by the democrats still goes to bat for the democrats. So the corrosion of American fortitude is self evident at this point.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Lol. Like Democrats won't accuse everyone of being a rapist from here on out. Who haven't they accused of sexism, racism, fascism, and anything under the sun in the last 30 years.
> When will people wake up and recognize that the democrats entire platform is to call everyone else evil.
> 
> Bush was once a racist. McCain was once a racist. Now that their racist slander isn't working so they'v egone directly to calling people rapists.
> 
> Next phase of Democrat politics. Call everyone a pedophile after they stop receiving the political beneift of calling people rapists.
> 
> These people have 0 integrity and Americans who support them are part of the problem of perpetually keeping democrats in power.
> 
> Even someone like BM whose own candidate was screwed by the democrats still goes to bat for the democrats. So the corrosion of American fortitude is self evident at this point.


A year ago I would have tried to argue with you (Man we had some arguments didn't we). Defend the Democrats.

I can't.

You're right.

They're scum.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> A year ago I would have tried to argue with you (Man we had some arguments didn't we). Defend the Democrats.
> 
> I can't.
> 
> You're right.
> 
> They're scum.


I'm also tired of arguing. At least a lot of us in this thread that have spent so much time together are finally starting to see eye to eye. 

Hey ... Given how much "leftists" are praising Nike these days apparently that's another thing the left and right can now agree on. And all Nike has done is spend millions they earned from the same people and gave it to one person using people's emotions against each other. While society remains divided, they're literally laughing all the way to the bank ... Being supported by "leftists" 

Corporations own Americans. Heart and mind. There really is no doubt at this point. 

I'm pro capitalism still but not to the extent where such manipulation should be allowed to exist.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Lol. Like Democrats won't accuse everyone of being a rapist from here on out. Who haven't they accused of sexism, racism, fascism, and anything under the sun in the last 30 years.
> When will people wake up and recognize that the democrats entire platform is to call everyone else evil.
> 
> Bush was once a racist. McCain was once a racist. Now that their racist slander isn't working so they'v egone directly to calling people rapists.
> 
> Next phase of Democrat politics. Call everyone a pedophile after they stop receiving the political beneift of calling people rapists.
> 
> These people have 0 integrity and Americans who support them are part of the problem of perpetually keeping democrats in power.
> 
> Even someone like BM whose own candidate was screwed by the democrats still goes to bat for the democrats. So the corrosion of American fortitude is self evident at this point.


Once Bush started to take pictures with the Obama's and so on he stopped getting attacked from the left. Stopped getting called racist and most everything. I mean, he took a lot of fair criticism when he was President, but the Dems seem to have gone soft on him some. The same with McCain the last couple of years. It was no longer beneficial to attack these two guys.

That said, the Republicans went too far with attacks when Obama was President. He really got handed a raw deal. He gets blamed for making easier access to welfare when he was President, but given how everything played out right before he was elected, it's hard to blame him for that. And the birther stuff was terrible also.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Ryder92 said:


> Once Bush started to take pictures with the Obama's and so on he stopped getting attacked from the left. Stopped getting called racist and most everything. I mean, he took a lot of fair criticism when he was President, but the Dems seem to have gone soft on him some. The same with McCain the last couple of years. It was no longer beneficial to attack these two guys.
> 
> That said, the Republicans went too far with attacks when Obama was President. He really got handed a raw deal. He gets blamed for making easier access to welfare when he was President, but given how everything played out right before he was elected, it's hard to blame him for that. And the birther stuff was terrible also.


I know. Both parties are the scourge of humanity. 

But people vote their own leaders when they continue to vote the scourge of humanity on both sides. 

So it's all a mess because people deserve the leadership they elect from amongst themselves.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Lol. Like Democrats won't accuse everyone of being a rapist from here on out. Who haven't they accused of sexism, racism, fascism, and anything under the sun in the last 30 years.
> When will people wake up and recognize that the democrats entire platform is to call everyone else evil.
> 
> Bush was once a racist. McCain was once a racist. Now that their racist slander isn't working so they'v egone directly to calling people rapists.
> 
> Next phase of Democrat politics. Call everyone a pedophile after they stop receiving the political beneift of calling people rapists.
> 
> These people have 0 integrity and Americans who support them are part of the problem of perpetually keeping democrats in power.
> 
> Even someone like BM whose own candidate was screwed by the democrats still goes to bat for the democrats. So the corrosion of American fortitude is self evident at this point.


Do you think that Brett Kavanaugh has any integrity after lying under oath over and over again?

Do you really find him credible?

Its also funny you claim that I defend the Democrats yet I bashed the shit of Hillary and the establishment Democrats all the time.

Do you really think BK after all of his lying is fit to be on the SCOTUS?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Do you think that Brett Kavanaugh has any integrity after lying under oath over and over again?
> 
> Do you really find him credible?


I don't care about Kavanaugh or the supreme Court because I consider the system to be broken anyways. 

But I do care about you going to bat for the democrats even though they keep screwing you over.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> I don't care about Kavanaugh or the supreme Court because I consider the system to be broken anyways.
> 
> But I do care about you going to bat for the democrats even though they keep screwing you over.


Nice deflection. 

And I don't go to bat for the dems on everything, so you are not being truthful. You are better than that.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nice deflection.
> 
> And I don't go to bat for the dems on everything, so you are not being truthful. You are better than that.


Deflection? How is it a deflection when I don't give a shit about anyone in the supreme Court since they're all partisan hacks chosen by partisan hacks? None of them I'm have any credibility because the system doesn't have any credibility. Almost all of their rulings in the past several decades have been pro corporatist. 

Have you ever voted for any non Democrat?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Deflection? How is it a deflection when I don't give a shit about anyone in the supreme Court since they're all partisan hacks chosen by partisan hacks? None of them I'm have any credibility because the system doesn't have any credibility.
> 
> Have you ever voted for any non Democrat?



Its deflection because if you admit he is not credible then it would be silly of you to claim oh I am a biased democrat for being against Kavanaugh. 

Yes, I told you before I voted for Romney over Obama the 2nd term because Obama what not what he claimed to be. I have brought this up over and over again on these forums

I voted for Weld in MA back in the day as well as Cellucci. Also voted for some Republicans in elections almost every election.

I don't vote down ballot.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its deflection because if you admit he is not credible then it would be silly of you to claim oh I am a biased democrat for being against Kavanaugh.
> 
> Yes, I told you before I voted for Romney over Obama the 2nd term because Obama what not what he claimed to be. I have brought this up over and over again on these forums
> 
> I voted for Weld in MA back in the day as well as Cellucci. Also voted for some Republicans in elections almost every election.
> 
> I don't vote down ballot.


Kavanaugh is probably some corporate shill and that's why they're pushing so hard to get him in. There's no doubt about that. But that does not mean that any other pick would be any better because over time the supreme Court as well as Congress have been filled with pro corporatist shills. The hostile takeover of the country is complete. You and I both know this. I know that deep down you do know this. 

It is actually good to know that you don't always blindly vote democrat. Hopefully in time you'll realize that voting for anyone is pointless. 

I'm a cynic now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Kavanaugh is probably some corporate shill and that's why they're pushing so hard to get him in. There's no doubt about that. But that does not mean that any other pick would be any better because over time the supreme Court as well as Congress have been filled with pro corporatist shills. The hostile takeover of the country is complete. You and I both know this. I know that deep down you do know this.
> 
> It is actually good to know that you don't always blindly vote democrat.* Hopefully in time you'll realize that voting for anyone is pointless.
> *
> I'm a cynic now.


OH I already realize that LOL Voting is all an illusion, it's not like they do what we want anyway, they do what their donors want


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> OH I already realize that LOL Voting is all an illusion, it's not like they do what we want anyway, they do what their donors want


This is why I at this point in time just don't debate as endlessly. It's pointless. The minutia is a distraction because most people don't see the bigger picture.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Amazon raised wages to $15 bucks an hour.
> 
> Citing tight labor market. But I think that a recent Twitter exchange between Bernie and Bezos bight have something to do with it as well.
> 
> Funny though. This still needs to be accounted for inflation. And 350k workers are a drop in the ocean in a country of 160 million odd workers.


Amazon "raising wages" is nothing more than corporate virtue signalling. Bernie Sanders is a political hack who only wants to look good for the younger uninformed voters, and Bezos is a greedy piece of shit. This "wage hike" is a net gain for Amazon monetarily and in public perception.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/17934194/amazon-minimum-wage-raise-stock-options-bonus-warehouse

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/amazon-cuts-bonuses-leads-questions-about-wage-hike-n916466

:mj4


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*Women's March Leader at Anti-Kavanaugh Rally: Don't Let People 'Be Comfortable Around You' If They Vote the Wrong Way*

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laure...ere-laughing-make-them-uncomfortable-n2525549

Try it bitch.

This is the Democratic party. Agree with me or I'll harass or assault you. I'll never vote for this party no matter who they run now.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> Amazon "raising wages" is nothing more than corporate virtue signalling. Bernie Sanders is a political hack who only wants to look good for the younger uninformed voters, and Bezos is a greedy piece of shit. This "wage hike" is a net gain for Amazon monetarily and in public perception.
> 
> https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/17934194/amazon-minimum-wage-raise-stock-options-bonus-warehouse
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/amazon-cuts-bonuses-leads-questions-about-wage-hike-n916466
> 
> :mj4


Bernie Sanders is a bum that couldn't hold down a real job for a huge chunk of his life, but he wants to decide how to spend other people's money.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*Another Conspiracy Bites the Dust: Kavanaugh Classmates Confirm 'Devil's Triangle' Was a Drinking Game*

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...drinking-game-just-like-he-testified-n2525558


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its deflection because if you admit he is not credible then it would be silly of you to claim oh I am a biased democrat for being against Kavanaugh.
> 
> Yes, I told you before I voted for Romney over Obama the 2nd term because Obama what not what he claimed to be. I have brought this up over and over again on these forums
> 
> I voted for Weld in MA back in the day as well as Cellucci. Also voted for some Republicans in elections almost every election.
> 
> I don't vote down ballot.


I was tempted to vote for Gary Johnson, but then when got the spotlight on him he started acting like an idiot.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Ryder92 said:


> *Another Conspiracy Bites the Dust: Kavanaugh Classmates Confirm 'Devil's Triangle' Was a Drinking Game*
> 
> https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...drinking-game-just-like-he-testified-n2525558


LOL yeah a few of his buddies claimed its that yet in the yearbook some of them had devils triangle with multiple years next to it. If it was a drinking game why would they do that? Please

Guess if you and a few of your buddies said 69 was drinking game people should believe that too right? The trolls on this forum are hilarious

You also ignored this


Jamie Roche, Kavanaugh's freshman year roommate at Yale told CNN that he heard Kavanaugh use the term to refer to sexual activity.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL yeah a few of his buddies claimed its that yet in the yearbook some of them had devils triangle with multiple years next to it. If it was a drinking game why would they do that? Please
> 
> Guess if you and a few of your buddies said 69 was drinking game people should believe that too right? The trolls on this forum are hilarious
> 
> You also ignored this
> 
> 
> Jamie Roche, Kavanaugh's freshman year roommate at Yale told CNN that he heard Kavanaugh use the term to refer to sexual activity.


Yeah, that Roche guy was on CNN and sounded a lot like Ford...

I don't know... I don't remember... It was a long time ago....


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Most of the time when this Roche guy makes a claim about Brett he looks to the side:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkSDARU7zGU

Watch his eyes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

When your eyes are looking to the sides it means are you are trying to remember something, its a way to recall things
Its a memory trick.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> When your eyes are looking to the sides it means are you are trying to remember something, its a way to recall things
> Its a memory trick.




https://www.businessinsider.com/how...atching-their-face-2016-1/#watch-their-eyes-1










He is even doing the head shaking thing.

-Looking around the room (especially to the right)
-Frequent blinking
-Sometimes shaking his head as he accuses Brett of things

I'm not going to say that he is lying about every single thing, but I don't think he is being completely truthful.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> I'm also tired of arguing. At least a lot of us in this thread that have spent so much time together are finally starting to see eye to eye.
> 
> Hey ... Given how much "leftists" are praising Nike these days apparently that's another thing the left and right can now agree on. And all Nike has done is spend millions they earned from the same people and gave it to one person using people's emotions against each other. While society remains divided, they're literally laughing all the way to the bank ... Being supported by "leftists" [emoji38]
> 
> Corporations own Americans. Heart and mind. There really is no doubt at this point.
> 
> I'm pro capitalism still but not to the extent where such manipulation should be allowed to exist.


Yup as soon as the Nike campaign came out I was like.. Yeah that's a scam.. and where is all that Nike stuff now? No where. Because they got their money. Nike hasn't changed how it does business, hasn't lowered their prices for poor people. A bunch of rubes bought their stuff virtue signaling as if a pair of sneakers will somehow change something. 

I'm sure another company will do the same stuff and try to fleece money. Game companies are trying it, these companies DO. NOT. CARE. Yet people go head down ass up for these companies and Politicians that over and over fuck them.

At some point you have to question if people just simply like being fucked over. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Yup as soon as the Nike campaign came out I was like.. Yeah that's a scam.. and where is all that Nike stuff now? No where. Because they got their money. Nike hasn't changed how it does business, hasn't lowered their prices for poor people. A bunch of rubes bought their stuff virtue signaling as if a pair of sneakers will somehow change something.
> 
> I'm sure another company will do the same stuff and try to fleece money. Game companies are trying it, these companies DO. NOT. CARE. Yet people go head down ass up for these companies and Politicians that over and over fuck them.
> 
> At some point you have to question if people just simply like being fucked over. [emoji23]


They obviously do. But not really because the Corporate media itself is apolitical and only cares about money. All it needs to do is convince people to spend money. That's it. It's also amoral and in its amorality it is not held to any standard of what we seem good or bad, just that we are convinced to continue to consume. 

I'll give you a more real world example of an actual and real impact of corporate amorality. 

When the Danish Cartoon of Mohammad were revealed, the entire west unanimously rose up in defense of free speech. 

It wasn't until the 1.7 billion Muslims threatened boycott of Western Corporations that the entire western narrative changed from protection of freedom of speech to "ok let's stop angering Muslims". Suddenly newspapers were filled with articles about islamophobia instead of protection of one of the wests greater ideals. An entire generation of millennials were raised to fear the wrath of angering people halfway around the world because those people hallway around the world constituted a massive loss for western corporations. 

The battle of free speech is essentially really a war over market share. 

Since the Mohammad cartoon protests, the very idea of free speech in the west is under threat and the western media itself is leading the charge despite their own journalists getting killed.

It's because the real power brokers realized that Muslims are a huge marhet and a lot of their other forms of livelihood (like weapon sales) depend on sucking Saudi Cock.

People are pawns. The only reason why they're allowed to live is because the corporate machine needs its fuel. We're the batteries and the power source that fuels the means of our 9wn subjugation and pretend it's freedom.


----------



## dele

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

If conservatives (in the US) can be single issue voters vis a vis abortion, I'm going to become a single issue voter in terms of cannabis legalization. It is *THE* winning issue in 2020. Why does no one realize this?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Yup as soon as the Nike campaign came out I was like.. Yeah that's a scam.. and where is all that Nike stuff now? No where. Because they got their money. Nike hasn't changed how it does business, hasn't lowered their prices for poor people. A bunch of rubes bought their stuff virtue signaling as if a pair of sneakers will somehow change something.
> 
> I'm sure another company will do the same stuff and try to fleece money. Game companies are trying it, these companies DO. NOT. CARE. Yet people go head down ass up for these companies and Politicians that over and over fuck them.
> 
> At some point you have to question if people just simply like being fucked over. :laugh:


Moving Your Eyes Improves Memory, Study Suggests
https://www.livescience.com/1473-moving-eyes-improves-memory-study-suggests.html

Moving your eyes from side to side can help improve the accuracy of your memory.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2007/03/26/improve-your-memory-wiggle-your-eyes-back-and-forth/

Scientists believe moving your eyes forces the two sides of your brain to communicate, improving its capacity to retrieve facts.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-452769/Its-eyes-secret-better-memory.html

mutha fucking science


----------



## Draykorinee

Did anyone seriously think Nike were the good guys? 

I just saw pathetic conservatives losing their shit like a bunch of babies and the Damn sjdoubleyoos saying they'd buy more to stick it to these pathetic conservatives.

Nike are and continue to be a company that runs sweatshops with kids to make cheap as fuck clothes to sell at premium price.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Did anyone seriously think Nike were the good guys?
> 
> I just saw pathetic conservatives losing their shit like a bunch of babies and the Damn sjdoubleyoos saying they'd buy more to stick it to these pathetic conservatives.
> 
> Nike are and continue to be a company that runs sweatshops with kids to make cheap as fuck clothes to sell at premium price.


American leftists are a lot like the conservatives they despise which is so hilarious when you really think about it :lmao

Two sides of the same coin. The real reason why there is no actual difference between democrats and republicans and when it comes to *important *issues like war and war budgets they vote unanimously the same way. And when they know they're going to lose the vote anyways, they vote along party lines knowing that they would lose anyways - just to create the illusion of opposition.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Congratulations to Brett Kavanaugh on becoming the next Supreme Court Justice! :clap

- Vic


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> American leftists are a lot like the conservatives they despise which is so hilarious when you really think about it :lmao
> 
> Two sides of the same coin. The real reason why there is no actual difference between democrats and republicans and when it comes to *important *issues like war and war budgets they vote unanimously the same way. And when they know they're going to lose the vote anyways, they vote along party lines knowing that they would lose anyways - just to create the illusion of opposition.


And that's why I hate modern day US politics. 

It isn't about arguing ideals, achieving compromise, or staying consistent with your beliefs. 

Its just "Muh side's gotta win!" and that's it.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

If you think the uproar over Kavanaugh is bad, imagine if Trump gets a chance to fill one of the 4 "liberal" seats. A nomination of Amy Coney Barrett would be Armageddon.


----------



## Draykorinee

Finally over, we can all move on from a lying judge to lying politicians for the mid terms.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Aren't judges supposed to be impartial? I don't get this. Are the judges literally divided in democrat judges that votes in favor of democrat stuff and Republican judges that votes in favor of republican stuff?


----------



## Clique

Genking48 said:


> Aren't judges supposed to be impartial? I don't get this. Are the judges literally divided in democrat judges that votes in favor of democrat stuff and Republican judges that votes in favor of republican stuff?


Welcome to America

Where everything is a political divide.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Clique said:


> Welcome to America


Thanks, I think I'll travel on further rather quickly though :quimby


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Genking48 said:


> Aren't judges supposed to be impartial? I don't get this. Are the judges literally divided in democrat judges that votes in favor of democrat stuff and Republican judges that votes in favor of republican stuff?


That is why it used to be a 60 vote threshold to prevent this from happening


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It was a stupid hill to die on over Kavanaugh anyway. And a stupid premise to build their case against him trying to leverage on the metoo movement. Should have stuck with the anti-labor and questionable partisanship bias from the start. Probably would not have worked, but at least the Democrats and the liberals won't come out looking like fools. Really exposed that what they really cared about was penance, not getting their shit together.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



BAD SHIV RISING said:


> If you think the uproar over Kavanaugh is bad, imagine if Trump gets a chance to fill one of the 4 "liberal" seats. A nomination of Amy Coney Barrett would be Armageddon.


gonna be lit


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*








The AP said:


> Jordan Hunt, 26, of Toronto, surrendered to police on Saturday. He faces eight counts of assault and seven counts of mischief under $5,000 relating to the Life Choice demonstration last Sunday afternoon at Keele and Bloor Sts.


Soy boy thought he was The Karate Kid! :lol

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Soy boy thought he was The Karate Kid! :lol
> 
> - Vic


He's done it before.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Genking48 said:


> Aren't judges supposed to be impartial? I don't get this. Are the judges literally divided in democrat judges that votes in favor of democrat stuff and Republican judges that votes in favor of republican stuff?


It's really, really stupid and a symptom of a greater issue as America becomes more polarized.

All the Supreme Court is supposed to do is look at the US Constitution and determine whether a law fits into the Constitution or not. It was designed to be just that, but both sides keep projecting their political objectives onto it.

Technically, a textualist is ideal because it takes any personal biases or ongoing political climates out of the equation, but the US Constitution was written by slave owners, so you know... here we are.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049087424243138565

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049092137944530944


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Empress said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049087424243138565
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049092137944530944


Is Taylor going to write a song about how she doesn't like Marsha Blackburn too?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Another virtue signalling liberal celebrity with those buzz words! Hurray!

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Another virtue signalling liberal celebrity with those buzz words! Hurray!
> 
> - Vic


How about you read what she wrote, she clearly outlined substantive policies she disagreed with and you just dismiss it as 'hurr durr, another celebrity'.

Taylor has very elequently put, without using ANY fucking buzzwords, why she will not be voting for someone based on the senators vote history and NOT on any pathetic bipartisan bullshittery.

I know you're a gimmick account, so I probably shouldn't bother replying but its always fun when people talk shit and you can shut them down easily.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

More fuckery in TX, they know every vote is going to matter, so sure let's fuck over 2400 people from voting that registered online, a few days before the deadline. Republicans, trying to get the fix in for Cruz to win.

Only way GOP can ever win is by cheating be it gerrymandering, voter supression like this, kicking putting off the voter roles or trying to put in BS iike voter iD laws.





https://www.chron.com/news/politics...00-online-voter-registrations-as-13279521.php

Texas rejects 2,400 online voter registrations as Oct. 9 deadline looms


More than 2,000 potential voters in Texas had their voters’ registration applications unfairly rejected by the Texas Secretary of State, a national advocacy group said Wednesday.

Those voters will be barred from voting on Nov. 6 unless they re-submit updated applications with new signatures on them, according to the Secretary of State’s office, which will send affected voters the paperwork by mail. It must be resubmitted to the state within 10 days.

Recommended Video

Vote.org, a nonpartisan group, said it helped 2,400 Texans from Dallas, 


Those voters will be barred from voting on Nov. 6 unless they re-submit updated applications with new signatures on them, according to the Secretary of State’s office, which will send affected voters the paperwork by mail. It must be resubmitted to the state within 10 days.

Recommended Video

Vote.org, a nonpartisan group, said it helped 2,400 Texans from Dallas, Bexar, Cameron and Travis counties submit voter registration applications that use digital photographs of their signatures.

Only at HoustonChronicle.com: Get informed with our general election voter guide

State officials say the applications submitted by the group do not comply with Texas law. Voter registration applications must include a handwritten signature, and that signature cannot be a copy, digital signature or photograph of a signature, according to a spokesman for the Texas Secretary of State.

“Our Elections Division instructed Vote.org to change their process immediately in order to comply with state law and avoid misleading Texas voters into submitting invalid registration forms,” said Sam Taylor, a spokesman for the Texas Secretary of State’s office.

The deadline for voters to register for the Nov. 6 election is Oct. 9. But those being directed to resubmit their paperwork via mail with corrected signatures will still have 10 days to do so, Taylor said.


exas election law is not clear as to whether a handwritten signature is necessary. It calls for a voter registration to be “submitted by personal delivery, by mail, or by telephonic facsimile machine” and states that it must be “in writing and signed by the applicant.”

Lawyers for Vote.org disagree with the Secretary of State’s interpretation and say they “reserve all rights to challenge it.” They say there is nothing in the election code requiring a handwritten signature. Still, they are changing the way they help Texas voters sign up by directing them to mail in a form that includes a handwritten signature.



The following are acceptable forms of ID to voter in Texas under the state's voter ID law. Photo: Eric Gay, AP Photo/Eric Gay, File / AP
Photo: Eric Gay, AP Photo/Eric Gay, File
IMAGE 1 OF 13
The following are acceptable forms of ID to voter in Texas under the state's voter ID law.
Texas election law is not clear as to whether a handwritten signature is necessary. It calls for a voter registration to be “submitted by personal delivery, by mail, or by telephonic facsimile machine” and states that it must be “in writing and signed by the applicant.”

Lawyers for Vote.org disagree with the Secretary of State’s interpretation and say they “reserve all rights to challenge it.” They say there is nothing in the election code requiring a handwritten signature. Still, they are changing the way they help Texas voters sign up by directing them to mail in a form that includes a handwritten signature.

KAVANAUGH BATTLE: Sheila Jackson Lee intern arrested for 'doxing' GOP senators

Raven Brooks, chief operating officer for Vote.org, said the state’s actions are frustrating and explain why Texas has some of the worst voter registration and voter participation rates in the nation. He says the Secretary of State’s office “throws up roadblocks to that participation.”

Brooks said he’s worried that some of the potential voters who tried to register with help from his group are not going to see their mail in time or just not follow through with another step to get registered.

Texas is already reporting a record surge in voter registration heading into the midterm elections. The state last week reported 15.6 million voters are registered for the 2018 midterm elections — about 1.6 million more than the last midterm election in 2014. Just since March, Texas has seen the voter rolls grow by about 400,000.

Texas is one of 12 states that do not allow online voter registration, which is allowed in 38 states plus the District of Columbia.

This election season, Vote.org was working directly with the four counties to boost registration. Brooks said the plan was to see how those registration efforts went and then expand the program to other counties.

Vote.Org officials said the online tool they created enabled Texans to register to vote under the provision of the Texas Election Code that allows registration by fax with a copy of the application sent by mail within four business days. With the tool, voters were able to capture their signatures electronically, submit their forms by fax, and initiate the printing and mailing of a copy of their form to county officials.

Taylor said the problem was that Vote.org was affixing voters' digital signatures to the applications for the voters, which is not only illegal in Texas but also creates a risk for fraud and abuse.

This is hardly the first time rules in Texas on voter registration signatures have created a problem. Civil rights groups sued the state in 2016, arguing that the different systems for online and in-person registrants violates the federal National Voter Registration Act, often called Motor Voter. While the state accepts electronic signatures from people who go to a Texas Department of Public Safety Office to change a voter registration, it does not accept changes submitted through the state’s online drivers license system.

The Texas Civil Rights Project says the state’s practices create confusion for potentially thousands of voters who think they’ve changed their voting information, but in fact have not.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

@WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster @Reap @Miss Sally @Draykorinee @RavishingRickRules @virus21

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amazon-scheme-supports-extremists-vdzsfvsls



> Amazon has agreed to fund a hardline British charity whose leading ideologue *supports child marriage, female genital mutilation and stoning people to death for adultery.*
> 
> Under its charitable programme, the internet giant will make donations to the London-based group whenever its supporters buy products.
> 
> The Muslim Research and Development Foundation (MRDF) has been described by the government’s counter-extremism commissioner, Sara Khan, as *“the main Salafist organisation in the UK”.*
> 
> Its founder and former chairman is *Haitham al-Haddad, 52, a Saudi-born Islamic scholar whose beliefs led him to be labelled “one of the most dangerous men in Britain” by the head of the counter-extremism Quilliam Foundation.*
> 
> Mr Haddad believes that:
> 
> • *Husbands should not be questioned about hitting their wives;*
> 
> • *Homosexuality is an evil crime;*
> 
> • *All western women should submit to Allah and wear the niqab*.
> 
> *He has warned young Muslims that in the future paedophilia will be legalised in the West. He also claimed that some western countries were discussing whether to sell aborted foetuses “as meat to be eaten, to be used as a barbecue” by people in east Asia.*
> 
> Ms Khan said: “Haitham al-Haddad’s views are misogynistic, racist and ****- phobic. They promote a supremacist ‘us versus them’ world view that wrongly makes Muslims feel that they can’t be fully British.” MRDF, which promotes the cleric’s belief that “Salafism is Islam”, is one of many charities that have successfully applied to join the Amazon Smile programme since it was launched in the UK last autumn.
> 
> Online shoppers who buy Amazon products through the scheme select a charity to which the retailer sends 0.5 per cent of the purchase price. Since its launch five years ago in America, Amazon has donated more than £60 million to eligible charities. The company claims it only accepts registered charities that do not “engage in, promote or support hatred, intolerance or discrimination based on sex, religion or sexual orientation”.
> 
> *In 2015, when the government said that universities would be legally required to stop extremists radicalising students, it named six speakers who were “on record as expressing views contrary to British values”. One was Mr Haddad. He is said by Ms Khan to play a leading role in a politicised grouping of Islamists and Salafists who claim to speak for Islam. Their invariable response to any criticism of their beliefs is to label it an Islamophobic attempt to demonise all British Muslims.*
> 
> Mr Haddad, who has a doctorate from SOAS, University of London, has publicly criticised jihadist terror attacks in the West against “innocent civilians” and the grooming of young British Muslims by Isis. *He maintains, however, that Muslims are engaged in an “eternal and global” struggle against “the enemies of Allah” that will eventually lead Islam to conquer the world. This would ideally be achieved by peaceful means, but the future global caliphate he wishes to see would feature mandatory capital punishment for apostasy and adultery.*
> 
> He said in 2012: “I have received so many requests from western women who committed adultery. They were begging me to help them to find a way to a Muslim country to be stoned to death.”
> 
> “The younger the better” is Mr Haddad’s advice on the best age for a teenage girl to marry although “you have to be careful of the legal issues”. Female circumcision, done the Islamically approved way, “is better for the husband” and “a virtue or honour for women”.
> 
> Mr Haddad says he represents orthodox Islam. Haras Rafiq, chief executive of the Quilliam Foundation, accused him yesterday of being “prolific in spreading a hate-based interpretation and distortion of my religion”.
> 
> Salah al-Ansari, a Quilliam researcher and the former imam of Regent’s Park Mosque, said that Mr Haddad’s opinions were drawn from an “exclusive and very selective school” of conservative Islamic law that “represents only itself”. The Muslims in Britain directory estimated last year that 9 per cent of Britain’s 1,900 mosques were led by Salafists
> 
> MRDF was one of four charities previously identified by the Henry Jackson Society (a foreign policy think tank), as having close links to Islamist extremists, that were later allowed to join Amazon Smile. Emma Webb, of the Henry Jackson Society’s centre on radicalisation and terrorism, said that by endorsing such charities, Amazon was “channelling ordinary shoppers’ money to the hands of intolerant extremists. That’s wildly irresponsible. It’s giving charities like MRDF a veneer of respectability they don’t deserve.”
> 
> MRDF has said it promotes non- violence. Its stated aim is “to see the rise and emergence of Muslims championing the pristine teachings of Islam in the West”.
> 
> Amazon declined to say when MRDF joined Amazon Smile, nor how much money it has already paid to the group. Any sums are likely to be small.
> 
> The company said it relied on the charities regulator to “determine which organisations are eligible to participate”. The four charities identified by the think tank were all “approved by the Charity Commission”, it said.
> 
> “Due to the serious nature of these concerns, we have referred these allegations to the commission and will be conducting a full review to ensure they do not violate our policies.”
> 
> The Charity Commission said it would “assess very carefully any evidence of concern” about MRDF. It said Mr Haddad resigned from the charity’s board in 2014 after “we raised our concerns about his suitability to serve as a trustee”. He has remained its public face and led an MRDF fundraising appeal in August, identifying himself as its representative.
> 
> Spokesmen for Mr Haddad said he was an eminent scholar and that it would be inaccurate to portray him as “an extremist hate preacher” or an intolerant person when judged by the standards of “western liberal democracy”. His words had often been taken “out of context” and there were “numerous inaccuracies”.
> 
> Mr Haddad has said that he strongly believes in peaceful social cohesion and mutual respect. He said Muslims were “just as entitled as anyone else” in British society “to contribute to what ‘British values’ actually are and how they should be interpreted”.



Do I need to even comment on how disgusting this is?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> More fuckery in TX, they know every vote is going to matter, so sure let's fuck over 2400 people from voting that registered online, a few days before the deadline. Republicans, trying to get the fix in for Cruz to win.
> 
> Only way GOP can ever win is by cheating be it gerrymandering, voter supression like this, kicking putting off the voter roles or trying to put in BS iike voter iD laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.chron.com/news/politics...00-online-voter-registrations-as-13279521.php
> 
> Texas rejects 2,400 online voter registrations as Oct. 9 deadline looms
> 
> 
> More than 2,000 potential voters in Texas had their voters’ registration applications unfairly rejected by the Texas Secretary of State, a national advocacy group said Wednesday.
> 
> Those voters will be barred from voting on Nov. 6 unless they re-submit updated applications with new signatures on them, according to the Secretary of State’s office, which will send affected voters the paperwork by mail. It must be resubmitted to the state within 10 days.
> 
> Recommended Video
> 
> Vote.org, a nonpartisan group, said it helped 2,400 Texans from Dallas,
> 
> 
> Those voters will be barred from voting on Nov. 6 unless they re-submit updated applications with new signatures on them, according to the Secretary of State’s office, which will send affected voters the paperwork by mail. It must be resubmitted to the state within 10 days.
> 
> Recommended Video
> 
> Vote.org, a nonpartisan group, said it helped 2,400 Texans from Dallas, Bexar, Cameron and Travis counties submit voter registration applications that use digital photographs of their signatures.
> 
> Only at HoustonChronicle.com: Get informed with our general election voter guide
> 
> State officials say the applications submitted by the group do not comply with Texas law. Voter registration applications must include a handwritten signature, and that signature cannot be a copy, digital signature or photograph of a signature, according to a spokesman for the Texas Secretary of State.
> 
> “Our Elections Division instructed Vote.org to change their process immediately in order to comply with state law and avoid misleading Texas voters into submitting invalid registration forms,” said Sam Taylor, a spokesman for the Texas Secretary of State’s office.
> 
> The deadline for voters to register for the Nov. 6 election is Oct. 9. But those being directed to resubmit their paperwork via mail with corrected signatures will still have 10 days to do so, Taylor said.
> 
> 
> exas election law is not clear as to whether a handwritten signature is necessary. It calls for a voter registration to be “submitted by personal delivery, by mail, or by telephonic facsimile machine” and states that it must be “in writing and signed by the applicant.”
> 
> Lawyers for Vote.org disagree with the Secretary of State’s interpretation and say they “reserve all rights to challenge it.” They say there is nothing in the election code requiring a handwritten signature. Still, they are changing the way they help Texas voters sign up by directing them to mail in a form that includes a handwritten signature.
> 
> 
> 
> The following are acceptable forms of ID to voter in Texas under the state's voter ID law. Photo: Eric Gay, AP Photo/Eric Gay, File / AP
> Photo: Eric Gay, AP Photo/Eric Gay, File
> IMAGE 1 OF 13
> The following are acceptable forms of ID to voter in Texas under the state's voter ID law.
> Texas election law is not clear as to whether a handwritten signature is necessary. It calls for a voter registration to be “submitted by personal delivery, by mail, or by telephonic facsimile machine” and states that it must be “in writing and signed by the applicant.”
> 
> Lawyers for Vote.org disagree with the Secretary of State’s interpretation and say they “reserve all rights to challenge it.” They say there is nothing in the election code requiring a handwritten signature. Still, they are changing the way they help Texas voters sign up by directing them to mail in a form that includes a handwritten signature.
> 
> KAVANAUGH BATTLE: Sheila Jackson Lee intern arrested for 'doxing' GOP senators
> 
> Raven Brooks, chief operating officer for Vote.org, said the state’s actions are frustrating and explain why Texas has some of the worst voter registration and voter participation rates in the nation. He says the Secretary of State’s office “throws up roadblocks to that participation.”
> 
> Brooks said he’s worried that some of the potential voters who tried to register with help from his group are not going to see their mail in time or just not follow through with another step to get registered.
> 
> Texas is already reporting a record surge in voter registration heading into the midterm elections. The state last week reported 15.6 million voters are registered for the 2018 midterm elections — about 1.6 million more than the last midterm election in 2014. Just since March, Texas has seen the voter rolls grow by about 400,000.
> 
> Texas is one of 12 states that do not allow online voter registration, which is allowed in 38 states plus the District of Columbia.
> 
> This election season, Vote.org was working directly with the four counties to boost registration. Brooks said the plan was to see how those registration efforts went and then expand the program to other counties.
> 
> Vote.Org officials said the online tool they created enabled Texans to register to vote under the provision of the Texas Election Code that allows registration by fax with a copy of the application sent by mail within four business days. With the tool, voters were able to capture their signatures electronically, submit their forms by fax, and initiate the printing and mailing of a copy of their form to county officials.
> 
> Taylor said the problem was that Vote.org was affixing voters' digital signatures to the applications for the voters, which is not only illegal in Texas but also creates a risk for fraud and abuse.
> 
> This is hardly the first time rules in Texas on voter registration signatures have created a problem. Civil rights groups sued the state in 2016, arguing that the different systems for online and in-person registrants violates the federal National Voter Registration Act, often called Motor Voter. While the state accepts electronic signatures from people who go to a Texas Department of Public Safety Office to change a voter registration, it does not accept changes submitted through the state’s online drivers license system.
> 
> The Texas Civil Rights Project says the state’s practices create confusion for potentially thousands of voters who think they’ve changed their voting information, but in fact have not.


Do you read the articles you post?


----------



## greasykid1

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Yikes. Made the mistake of reading a politics-based thread on an internet forum.
Man, there are some exceptionally dislikable people around here.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> He said in 2012: “I have received so many requests from western women who committed adultery. They were begging me to help them to find a way to a Muslim country to be stoned to death.”


kay2

It seems that they are investigating this and this was purely an oversight on the fact they base their charities on the charity commission.

However I am not surprised to find that our British charities commission are desperate to please the Muslim minority.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*The Handmaid's Tale Rule*: Anybody accused of rape is guilty no matter what even without evidence or corroborating witnesses as decreed by the court of social media.

- Vic


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Only way GOP can ever win is by cheating be it gerrymandering, voter supression like this, kicking putting off the voter roles or trying to put in BS iike voter iD laws.


You need an ID to buy cigarettes, alcohol, to get into a nightclub... but you don't think ID should be required to vote? 

Can you think of any legitimate reason why a person 18 years of age or older _wouldn't_ have a photo ID? Seems like that's pretty basic to me.


----------



## Jericho-79

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

By the way-

What does this Kavanaugh thing mean for the #metoo and #timesup movements?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> @WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster @Reap @Miss Sally @Draykorinee @RavishingRickRules @virus21
> 
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amazon-scheme-supports-extremists-vdzsfvsls
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I need to even comment on how disgusting this is?


I see nothing wrong with this, after all questioning a minority Religion or Culture regardless if that ideology is spreading sexism, kiddy diddling, is pro abusing women and pro extremism is probably racist and 50 other isms, ists and some form of supremacy. :x

Sometimes I wonder if people take the time to sit down and actually think about who/what they support.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> You need an ID to buy cigarettes, alcohol, to get into a nightclub... but you don't think ID should be required to vote?
> 
> Can you think of any legitimate reason why a person 18 years of age or older _wouldn't_ have a photo ID? Seems like that's pretty basic to me.


We have been over this a million times in these threads. There is no need for voter IDs since there is virtually zero voter fraud. All voters IDs would do is discriminate against the poor and minorities which is why the GOP wants it. It's just another way they can suppress the vote. Also look at the BS they do with crosscheck. Watch this https://youtu.be/C5Uey_jekNY 

The GOP knows the only way they can say in power is voter suppression and that is why they try to do all the time


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> We have been over this a million times in these threads. There is no need for voter IDs since there is virtually zero voter fraud. *All voters IDs would do is discriminate against the poor and minorities which is why the GOP wants it*. It's just another way they can suppress the vote. Also look at the BS they do with crosscheck. Watch this https://youtu.be/C5Uey_jekNY
> 
> The GOP knows the only way they can say in power is voter suppression and that is why they try to do all the time


I'm sure you had a good reason for posting a link to that video but it's an hour long and I'd rather hear your answer personally.

How does being poor or being an ethnic minority prevent you from obtaining a photo ID?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I'm sure you had a good reason for posting a link to that video but it's an hour long and I'd rather hear your answer personally.
> 
> How does being poor or being an ethnic minority prevent you from obtaining a photo ID?


I can give an answer to this. This is my own local anecdote. I live about an hour's drive from the nearest place to get a legitimate photo I.D. It's open T-F, 8-6. Most lower income people are working during these hours. They're only off on the weekend, and sometimes not then either. Now imagine you're also a parent and have to drop off/pick up your kids. Can't take the 2+ hour journey to get your photo I.D. Throw in the cost of said I.D. To someone who isn't incredibly politically active, they might not feel like it's worth it. Also, they're less likely to already have a photo I.D. like a driver's license since they might take public transport since they don't have a car. Then there's the different documents you need to bring, which for some is its own burden especially if you're elderly. My Dad had to get a copy of his birth certificate and it was a 6 hour round trip. That's if an elderly person can get a ride since they might not be legally able to drive anymore.

My problem with the I.D. thing is, if you are going to have that in place then it should be easy and free to get.

Have mobile centers going through communities with all the equipment and access to all the government documents they need to register. Do the picture right there and issue it right there. Most importantly, make it free since voting is a constitutional right, not a privilege like driving.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I'm sure you had a good reason for posting a link to that video but it's an hour long and I'd rather hear your answer personally.
> 
> How does being poor or being an ethnic minority prevent you from obtaining a photo ID?


Speaking from personal experience, getting an ID can be a hassle. I've always been someone who makes sure I have identification. But I let a year lapse in between moving from PA to New York. I will own that I just didn't feel like it and a few places wouldn't serve me. 

In any event, I scheduled an appt to the DMV last year to get my new ID. My passport, bills and Pennsylvania ID were deemed insufficient. They needed more, as though PA is Mars. Why an expired ID is not given any consideration is beyond me. 

I had to pay for a copy of my social, spend four hours at the DMV and then pay for the ID. For those who can't take time off from work, find the resources to pay the fees and the ability to locate their Social Security and other info, it's incredibly frustrating. I truly believe it's deliberately done on purpose to discourage people.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only way GOP can ever win is by cheating be it gerrymandering, voter supression like this, kicking putting off the voter roles or trying to put in BS iike voter iD laws.
> 
> 
> 
> You need an ID to buy cigarettes, alcohol, to get into a nightclub... but you don't think ID should be required to vote?
> 
> Can you think of any legitimate reason why a person 18 years of age or older _wouldn't_ have a photo ID? Seems like that's pretty basic to me.
Click to expand...

We don't need to give legitimate reasons really, just the fact 3.5 million pale in the UK don't have photo ID would give an idea of how many millions won't have it in the US.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/06/charities_slam_voter_id_trials/


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I'm sure you had a good reason for posting a link to that video but it's an hour long and I'd rather hear your answer personally.
> 
> How does being poor or being an ethnic minority prevent you from obtaining a photo ID?


It doesn't. He just wants illegals to be able to vote so it helps the Dems.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I'm sure you had a good reason for posting a link to that video but it's an hour long and I'd rather hear your answer personally.
> 
> How does being poor or being an ethnic minority prevent you from obtaining a photo ID?


2 Ton 21 and Empress gave two examples of what I am talking about.

You could also just google it too to get a ton of articles as well.

Why do you think we need voter IDs when it pretty much never happens?

PS something like you need an ID to buy cigarettes, alcohol, to get into a nightclub, is not an answer since those have nothing to do with voting, and voting is a right.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Is Taylor going to write a song about how she doesn't like Marsha Blackburn too?


She can't keep her own personal relationships straight, but then she is going to give advice? She is just another Democratic shill. I'm offended by her shitty music. She is another example of how long standards have become.

I've stopped going to the movies, listening to most of the music I did before and I've stopped watching sporting events. I'm glad that I did. :smile2:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Ryder92 said:


> She can't keep her own personal relationships straight, but then she is going to give advice? She is just another Democratic shill. I'm offended by her shitty music. She is another example of how long standards have become.
> 
> I've stopped going to the movies, listening to most of the music I did before and I've stopped watching sporting events. I'm glad that I did. :smile2:


LOL at how triggered you are

its always funny how people like you stop watching movies, or sports or listen to music because of singers, actors, or sports politically opinion

Tom Brady is a huge Trump fan, but I don't stop watching the Patriots because of our Owner, coach and QB like Trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at how triggered you are
> 
> its always funny how people like you stop watching movies, or sports or listen to music because of singers, actors, or sports politically opinion
> 
> Tom Brady is a huge Trump fan, but I don't stop watching the Patriots because of our Owner, coach and QB like Trump


yeah but that's because you're a secret Trump supporter

EDIT: opps meant to pm this fuck sorry BM


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at how triggered you are


Triggered? Not hardly. 

I don't expect anything different from you though. You do a lot of talking about things you know nothing about.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I can give an answer to this. This is my own local anecdote. I live about an hour's drive from the nearest place to get a legitimate photo I.D. It's open T-F, 8-6. Most lower income people are working during these hours. They're only off on the weekend, and sometimes not then either. Now imagine you're also a parent and have to drop off/pick up your kids. Can't take the 2+ hour journey to get your photo I.D. Throw in the cost of said I.D. To someone who isn't incredibly politically active, they might not feel like it's worth it. Also, they're less likely to already have a photo I.D. like a driver's license since they might take public transport since they don't have a car. Then there's the different documents you need to bring, which for some is its own burden especially if you're elderly. My Dad had to get a copy of his birth certificate and it was a 6 hour round trip. That's if an elderly person can get a ride since they might not be legally able to drive anymore.


Most people who have full time 40 hour per week M-F jobs have some form of vacation/sick time they can take.

Most companies start you at 5 sick days a year, getting an ID is a priority.

You also probably needed an ID when you started the job, so if you are working you should at least have one anyway.

I am interested if your state is like mine, where you can go online and actually order an ID, and have it mailed to you.



> My problem with the I.D. thing is, if you are going to have that in place then it should be easy and free to get.


I agree 100%, especially considering that most people at our DMV here seem to think work is voluntary.

It is infuriating seeing people stand behind a desk and do nothing, while you are trying to get in and get out. 



> Have mobile centers going through communities with all the equipment and access to all the government documents they need to register. Do the picture right there and issue it right there. Most importantly, make it free since voting is a constitutional right, not a privilege like driving.


Good idea.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Most people who have full time 40 hour per week M-F jobs have some form of vacation/sick time they can take.
> 
> Most companies start you at 5 sick days a year, getting an ID is a priority.
> 
> You also probably needed an ID when you started the job, so if you are working you should at least have one anyway.
> 
> I am interested if your state is like mine, where you can go online and actually order an ID, and have it mailed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100%, especially considering that most people at our DMV here seem to think work is voluntary.
> 
> It is infuriating seeing people stand behind a desk and do nothing, while you are trying to get in and get out.
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.


You still have not given a reason why a voter ID is needed. There is virtually zero voter fraud


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at how triggered you are
> 
> its always funny how people like you stop watching movies, or sports or listen to music because of singers, actors, or sports politically opinion
> 
> Tom Brady is a huge Trump fan, but I don't stop watching the Patriots because of our Owner, coach and QB like Trump


Views regarding politics isn't the only reason I've stopped supporting actors, musicians and athletes. The NFL is a crappy product now. Too many rules and mediocre games. The grit is gone from the game. It's nothing but a big and slick corporate product now. The players being idiots are only part of it. The last time I was super invested was back what Steve McNair was QB for the Titans (I used to be a Titans fan). 

But I watched the NFL out of habit just like many watch this crappy WWE product out of habit. The players just made it easier.

As for movies, the last movie I saw at the movies was Fury Road. Today's movies are most mediocre and cycled crap. I never cared about superheroes outside of enjoying the Batman movies and so these Superhero movies don't really appeal to me that much. In fact, I haven't seen a comic book film since The Dark Knight Rises. Then you mostly vanity projects that these people make that I don't give one rats ass about.

Hollywood has too much mediocre talent now. Actors with very little charisma and personality like Christian Bale (Other than American Psycho), Ryan Gosling, Tom Hardy. Mediocre talents. I was bored to death with Hardy's boring performance as Mad Max. So many of these guys look similar and have similar bland personalities. 

As pathetic as Robert De Niro comes off now as his brain has been fried from drug abuse from the 70's and 80's, I can say that his work was worth watching. Hollywood today doesn't have an entertaining enough products to make it worth going to the movies for at this point.

What I'm saying is that the products of the NFL, Hollywood and the entertainment biz at large and no longer quality enough to make it worth hearing their idiotic personal opinions.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You still have not given a reason why a voter ID is needed. There is virtually zero voter fraud


I am sorry, I didn't know I was arguing voter fraud.

i was arguing why it isn't hard to get an ID.

Voter fraud stats matter on who you listen to.

Washington Post will says its non-existant, Fox News will show you a case where it is a real problem.

So you going to show me the liberal side, or conservative side of the argument, because I have read both.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Ryder92 said:


> *Views regarding politics isn't the only reason I've stopped supporting actors, musicians and athletes.* The NFL is a crappy product now. Too many rules and mediocre games. The grit is gone from the game. It's nothing but a big and slick corporate product now. The players being idiots are only part of it. The last time I was super invested was back what Steve McNair was QB for the Titans (I used to be a Titans fan).
> 
> But I watched the NFL out of habit just like many watch this crappy WWE product out of habit. The players just made it easier.
> 
> As for movies, the last movie I saw at the movies was Fury Road. Today's movies are most mediocre and cycled crap. I never cared about superheroes outside of enjoying the Batman movies and so these Superhero movies don't really appeal to me that much. In fact, I haven't seen a comic book film since The Dark Knight Rises. Then you mostly vanity projects that these people make that I don't give one rats ass about.
> 
> Hollywood has too much mediocre talent now. Actors with very little charisma and personality like Christian Bale (Other than American Psycho), Ryan Gosling, Tom Hardy. Mediocre talents. I was bored to death with Hardy's boring performance as Mad Max. So many of these guys look similar and have similar bland personalities.
> 
> As pathetic as Robert De Niro comes off now as his brain has been fried from drug abuse from the 70's and 80's, I can say that his work was worth watching. Hollywood today doesn't have an entertaining enough products to make it worth going to the movies for at this point.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the products of the NFL, Hollywood and the entertainment biz at large and no longer quality enough to make it *worth hearing their idiotic personal opinions*.


So you admit their political opinions was the last straw which is pretty much what I just said. You stopped watching because of their opinions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I am sorry, I didn't know I was arguing voter fraud.
> 
> i was arguing why it isn't hard to get an ID.
> 
> Voter fraud stats matter on who you listen to.
> 
> Washington Post will says its non-existant, Fox News will show you a case where it is a real problem.
> 
> So you going to show me the liberal side, or conservative side of the argument, because I have read both.


The fact is voter fraud is not a problem and LOL at even trying to listen to fox news.

And its not easy getting an ID for some of the reasons empress pointed out. Its even harder if you are a married woman and have a different last name or if you dont have a car or good transportation.


----------



## Draykorinee

DMD Mofomagic said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not given a reason why a voter ID is needed. There is virtually zero voter fraud
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, I didn't know I was arguing voter fraud.
> 
> i was arguing why it isn't hard to get an ID.
> 
> Voter fraud stats matter on who you listen to.
> 
> Washington Post will says its non-existant, Fox News will show you a case where it is a real problem.
> 
> So you going to show me the liberal side, or conservative side of the argument, because I have read both.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how hard it is, people still don't do it. 3.5 million people in the UK don't have ID. Making people have one for voting will be a failure here. It would be even worse in the US.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The fact is voter fraud is not a problem and LOL at even trying to listen to fox news.


I listen to everything. Why wouldn't you?



> And its not easy getting an ID for some of the reasons empress pointed out. Its even harder if you are a married woman and have a different last name or if you dont have a car or good transportation.


Empress also said, that they let their ID lapse for a year, and that is why it was such a hard time, that is a choice. I am sure that is a lesson learned and next time they will be more careful

Also, married women get new ID's all the time. you need your marriage certificate and your Social Security card (which has to be changed anyway, so you get one of those right away), both things that you keep in a safe place that can be used to get things like an ID.

And are you going to use transportation as the argument in the day of Lyft, Uber, zipcar, Taxi cabs, and a plethora of other resources you can use to drive from place to place.

Also, if the person can't afford those things, they would need to get a job, or go on government assistance, in which you would need the same documentation you need to get *shock* an ID.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Doesn't matter how hard it is, people still don't do it. 3.5 million people in the UK don't have ID. Making people have one for voting will be a failure here. It would be even worse in the US.


But you still need an ID for things as simple as getting a job (at least one where taxes are being taken)

Should we stop asking for people's ID for where they work at because so many people in the UK don't have one?


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at how triggered you are
> 
> its always funny how people like you stop watching movies, or sports or listen to music because of singers, actors, or sports politically opinion
> 
> Tom Brady is a huge Trump fan, but I don't stop watching the Patriots because of our Owner, coach and QB like Trump


I always love when Trump supporters go on a NFL team facebook page telling people that they're no longer watching.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I listen to everything. Why wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Empress also said, that they let their ID lapse for a year, and that is why it was such a hard time, that is a choice. I am sure that is a lesson learned and next time they will be more careful
> 
> Also, married women get new ID's all the time. you need your marriage certificate and your Social Security card (which has to be changed anyway, so you get one of those right away), both things that you keep in a safe place that can be used to get things like an ID.
> 
> And are you going to use transportation as the argument in the day of Lyft, Uber, zipcar, Taxi cabs, and a plethora of other resources you can use to drive from place to place.
> 
> Also, if the person can't afford those things, they would need to get a job, or go on government assistance, in which you would need the same documentation you need to get *shock* an ID.


Why would you listen to propaganda like Fox news when you know 90% fo what they say is bullshit? Do you watch infowars too?

Yes I will use transportation as an excuse especially when the poor cannot afford to get an uber or taxi



DMD Mofomagic said:


> But you still need an ID for things as simple as getting a job (at least one where taxes are being taken)
> 
> Should we stop asking for people's ID for where they work at because so many people in the UK don't have one?



Again voting is a RIGHT, and you keep talking like you think we need an ID to vote when AGAIN there is no voter fraud

Give me a reason why we should need an ID to vote and keep it to voting not what other things you need an ID for 

And you can have a fake ID so just like people do for buying beer in college. So this whole ID thing solves NOTHING its just to suppress the vote


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I listen to everything. Why wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> *Empress also said, that they let their ID lapse for a year, and that is why it was such a hard time, that is a choice. I am sure that is a lesson learned and next time they will be more careful*
> 
> Also, married women get new ID's all the time. you need your marriage certificate and your Social Security card (which has to be changed anyway, so you get one of those right away), both things that you keep in a safe place that can be used to get things like an ID.
> 
> And are you going to use transportation as the argument in the day of Lyft, Uber, zipcar, Taxi cabs, and a plethora of other resources you can use to drive from place to place.
> 
> Also, if the person can't afford those things, they would need to get a job, or go on government assistance, in which you would need the same documentation you need to get *shock* an ID.


I let my ID lapse for a year. I made that choice and accept the consequences that came with it. The only one was that some restaurants wouldn't serve me alcohol without a current ID. 

When I did show up to renew, the process was made more difficult than necessary. I had my passport, birth certificate, present day bills and previous ID's from another state and yet they demanded even more proof through my social. But I'm stubborn, aware that I do need an ID for most instances, and made the two trips, paid $$ and spent four hours to get it renewed.

I understand why some want ID for voting especially when it's required for so much. At the same time, I wish the hardships in obtaining one weren't waived off. Some people are just lazy. Others are overwhelmed by the process. 

I chose to get a New York ID for 8 years so that I don't have to deal with this again for quite some time. At least my pic turned out good but I wish it were in color like my PA one was.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you admit their political opinions was the last straw which is pretty much what I just said. You stopped watching because of their opinions.


I know lefties are desperate to try and turn the whole "triggered" ordeal back at others. But the left gets mocked at being "triggered" due to their often times overly emotional reactions to things that conflict with their world view.

I don't see the point in supporting stupid people without some real incentive to do so.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Ryder92 said:


> I know lefties are desperate to try and turn the whole "triggered" ordeal back at others. But the left gets mocked at being "triggered" due to their often times overly emotional reactions to things that conflict with their world view.
> 
> I don't see the point in supporting stupid people without some real incentive to do so.


the whole reason the triggered term was always funny is because it was just the projection of the people on the right but were too stupid to see it


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> the whole reason the triggered term was always funny is because it was just the projection of the people on the right but were too stupid to see it


When I think "triggered" this is what comes to mind:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Ryder92 said:


> When I think "triggered" this is what comes to mind:


Here is the difference between people on the left and being "triggered' and people on the right being "triggered".

People on the left you make fun of them for being triggered for real issues like equal rights minorities, LBGT rights, me-too movement etc whereas the things that trigger people on the right are coffee cups not saying merry xmas, when people say happy holidays to them, when gays want to get married, when people use their free speech to kneel during the national anthem.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Ryder92 said:


> I know lefties are desperate to try and turn the whole "triggered" ordeal back at others. But the left gets mocked at being "triggered" due to their often times overly emotional reactions to things that conflict with their world view.
> 
> I don't see the point in supporting stupid people without some real incentive to do so.


How sweet.

The evangelical right, sundry pearl clutching mothers, self-proclaimed patriots of America were getting triggered by things that mildly disagreed with their worldview and "won't somebody think of the children"ing and "how dare they disrespect the flag"ing decades before the concept of political correctness was but a glint in the eye of an overly eager left winger/Right wing newspaper owner/delete as appropriate.

An overeager student in 2017? Nah, Superbowl 2004, THAT's what being triggered is.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Here is the difference between people on the left and being "triggered' and people on the right being "triggered".
> 
> People on the left you make fun of them for being triggered for real issues like equal rights minorities, LBGT rights, me-too movement etc whereas the things that trigger people on the right are coffee cups not saying merry xmas, when people say happy holidays to them, when gays want to get married, when people use their free speech to kneel during the national anthem.


Honestly, I don't see why we need the National Anthem before games anyway. I don't know what purpose it is supposed to serve. If I were to watch a ball game I want to watch the game. The Anthem has nothing to do with it. 

I never stood for the flag even when I was in Elementary school. I didn't sit as a form of protest or to draw attention to myself. I just didn't understand why we needed to do it every school morning.

I'm not a religious person and so the Happy Holidays thing doesn't bother me. I only get annoyed if one mocks one religion while being extremely protective of another. And as for marriage, I'm for government getting out of it. I don't care how many people get married to who as long as everyone is legal aged and in agreement over the arrangement.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why would you listen to propaganda like Fox news when you know 90% fo what they say is bullshit? Do you watch infowars too?
> 
> Yes I will use transportation as an excuse especially when the poor cannot afford to get an uber or taxi


Oh, lets going down this rabbit hole...

who are "The poor"




> Again voting is a RIGHT, and you keep talking like you think we need an ID to vote when AGAIN there is no voter fraud
> 
> Give me a reason why we should need an ID to vote and keep it to voting not what other things you need an ID for
> 
> And you can have a fake ID so just like people do for buying beer in college. So this whole ID thing solves NOTHING its just to suppress the vote


Are you saying voter fraud doesn't exist?

And you do it to set a precedence, should we ignore new problems because they arent big enough yet?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Oh, lets going down this rabbit hole...
> 
> who are "The poor"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying voter fraud doesn't exist?
> 
> And you do it to set a precedence, should we ignore new problems because they arent big enough yet?


Voter fraud does not exist. It barely ever happens. And most times the allegations turn out to be clerical errors. 


It's a non-factor. It never has been. You don't need to fix what is not broken. The only reason why the GOP wants to use voter ID because it suppresses the vote.

Are you ok with voter suppression?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Empress said:


> I let my ID lapse for a year. I made that choice and accept the consequences that came with it. The only one was that some restaurants wouldn't serve me alcohol without a current ID.
> 
> When I did show up to renew, the process was made more difficult than necessary. I had my passport, birth certificate, present day bills and previous ID's from another state and yet they demanded even more proof through my social. But I'm stubborn, aware that I do need an ID for most instances, and made the two trips, paid $$ and spent four hours to get it renewed.
> 
> I understand why some want ID for voting especially when it's required for so much. At the same time, I wish the hardships in obtaining one weren't waived off. Some people are just lazy. Others are overwhelmed by the process.
> 
> I chose to get a New York ID for 8 years so that I don't have to deal with this again for quite some time. At least my pic turned out good but I wish it were in color like my PA one was.


When I lost my ID card, I had a similar experience.

I had to go get my SS card first, then go get my license.It was a pain in the butt, and made me become more careful about my ID.

They now have changed it here in MD, where I can renew it online, and just have them ship everything to me.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Voter fraud does not exist. It barely ever happens. And most times the allegations turn out to be clerical errors.
> 
> 
> It's a non-factor. It never has been. You don't need to fix what is not broken. The only reason why the GOP wants to use voter ID because it suppresses the vote.
> 
> Are you ok with voter suppression?


Answer my question about the poor first.

I want to know what you meant about that, I am not talking about anything else until you do.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Answer my question about the poor first.
> 
> I want to know what you meant about that, I am not talking about anything else until you do.


Anyone that falls under the poverty line.


https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fpl/


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> @WF's Biggest Braves Believer and Booster @Reap @Miss Sally @Draykorinee @RavishingRickRules @virus21
> 
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amazon-scheme-supports-extremists-vdzsfvsls
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I need to even comment on how disgusting this is?


Warned young Muslims that paedophilia will be legalised in the West...yet his Islam promotes child marriages. I've had it with this brand of Islam that makes a fuss over Halal products and a piece of headgear but turns a blind eye to child marriages and violence against women radicalising formerly common folks. But hard to see any viable solution to the issue just like I can't see any solution to the Alex Jones of the world. Just depressing.


----------



## Draykorinee

Ryder92 said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the difference between people on the left and being "triggered' and people on the right being "triggered".
> 
> People on the left you make fun of them for being triggered for real issues like equal rights minorities, LBGT rights, me-too movement etc whereas the things that trigger people on the right are coffee cups not saying merry xmas, when people say happy holidays to them, when gays want to get married, when people use their free speech to kneel during the national anthem.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't see why we need the National Anthem before games anyway. I don't know what purpose it is supposed to serve. If I were to watch a ball game I want to watch the game. The Anthem has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I never stood for the flag even when I was in Elementary school. I didn't sit as a form of protest or to draw attention to myself. I just didn't understand why we needed to do it every school morning.
> 
> I'm not a religious person and so the Happy Holidays thing doesn't bother me. I only get annoyed if one mocks one religion while being extremely protective of another. And as for marriage, I'm for government getting out of it. I don't care how many people get married to who as long as everyone is legal aged and in agreement over the arrangement.
Click to expand...

The obscene overuse of patriotism in America is creepy. Americans in my experience have an innate ability to overdo everything. Sometimes this is to their benefit other times not.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Most people who have full time 40 hour per week M-F jobs have some form of vacation/sick time they can take.
> 
> Most companies start you at 5 sick days a year, getting an ID is a priority.
> 
> You also probably needed an ID when you started the job, so if you are working you should at least have one anyway.
> 
> I am interested if your state is like mine, where you can go online and actually order an ID, and have it mailed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100%, especially considering that most people at our DMV here seem to think work is voluntary.
> 
> It is infuriating seeing people stand behind a desk and do nothing, while you are trying to get in and get out.
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.


No, you can't order online in my state ASFAIK.

That part about 40 hour jobs etc., a decent amount of the poor work at jobs that will only give them part time shifts to avoid paying benefits. So, they schedule them for 39 hours a week. Some will work two or more of these "part time" jobs to make up the difference in income. Also, those same jobs give you no paid time off i.e. sick leave/vacation. It's either miss a day's pay and get your I.D. or just forget it and that's if your boss doesn't get pissed at you for taking an unpaid day off.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> No, you can't order online in my state ASFAIK.


I would definitely double check that.

Here in MD, if you have an ID, you can renew it, and then have them ship you the ID to your home, so you do't even have to take time off work or anything like that.

If you lose your ID though, it is a pain in the ass.



> That part about 40 hour jobs etc., a decent amount of the poor work at jobs that will only give them part time shifts to avoid paying benefits. So, they schedule them for 39 hours a week. Some will work two or more of these "part time" jobs to make up the difference in income. Also, those same jobs give you no paid time off i.e. sick leave/vacation. It's either miss a day's pay and get your I.D. or just forget it and that's if your boss doesn't get pissed at you for taking an unpaid day off.


Ok, you are making A LOT of assumptions and excuses in this scenario, so i will break it down how I see it, and you tell me where i may be wrong.

You said your DMV is open Tuesday-Friday between 8-6.

And that you live about an hour away, so lets say a person works at a job part time (poor people can get full time jobs, but i digress)

Well a part time job is classified as less than 32 hours a week, so lets say it is between those days Tuesday-Friday 8-5 (thats the only way it would work in the scenario, because any other day they would have a day off)

Well, most jobs (once again for tax purposes) require you to have an ID to even be employed there, so renewal should be an option as you wouldn't have to take off work for that.

But even saying that your state is the one that doesn't have a renewal, or the person loses their ID for the day, what is the harm of going to your boss and saying "Hey I need a half day off work tomorrow, I lost my ID and need to get a new one"

The Social Security office would probably be open on Monday, which would be your day off, you wait to get your Social Security card in the mail, and then, you take a half day off work to go get your ID.

If you are "the poor"(that is so demeaning how you guys are saying it) I am sure that you being able to have your ID is a priority that you can take 4 hours off work to go get it done, or even 8.

I am currently in management, I don't know any manager that would be able to keep employees if he is flipping out at someone because they need to take time off to go get their ID.

Lastly, the person could probably make up the day on Monday, since most businesses are open 5-7 days a week.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

A vast majority of states have a law that gives you an hour or more to go vote during work. If you're working or on disability/welfare you need to provide ID anyway. There is literally no reason not to need an ID to vote.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049663277498798080


> President Trump has accepted Nikki Haley's resignation as UN Ambassador, according to two sources briefed on their conversation. The timing of her departure is still unclear.
> 
> What we're hearing: Haley discussed her resignation with Trump last week when she visited him at the White House, these sources said. Her news shocked a number of senior foreign policy officials in the Trump administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Background: Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was easily confirmed four days after President Trump's inauguration in 2017.
> 
> She has overseen Trump's shift in dealing with the UN, including the U.S. exit from the UN Human Rights Council, which Haley called the organization's "greatest failure."
> 
> Worth noting: Haley wrote a public op-ed in September challenging the N.Y. Times' anonymous op-ed:
> 
> "I don’t agree with the president on everything. When there is disagreement, there is a right way and a wrong way to address it. I pick up the phone and call him or meet with him in person."
> 
> "Like my colleagues in the Cabinet and on the National Security Council, I have very open access to the president. He does not shut out his advisers, and he does not demand that everyone agree with him. I can talk to him most any time, and I frequently do."
> 
> "If I disagree with something and believe it is important enough to raise with the president, I do it. And he listens."


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> A vast majority of states have a law that gives you an hour or more to go vote during work. If you're working or on disability/welfare you need to provide ID anyway. There is literally no reason not to need an ID to vote.


I may have read this wrong when i did research

But in MD, you do not need ID for things like subsidy. 

Not sure why, because that should be the case as well, even though I do not agree with drug testing people on assistance.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Why am I not surprised. 

She was all for not continuing to waste 100's of billions of US dollars on the corrupt shitfest that is the UN fpalm

There are too many people dependent on US taxpayers ALL OVER the world. 

This shit fuckery needs to end. The US needs to stop all wars and therefore stop bribing the other governments to let them wage wars in their countries. 

It's a motherfucking win-win.


----------



## Headliner

My guess for Nikki quitting is that Nikki is running for Lindsey Graham's South Carolina Senate seat in 2020. She was the Governor of South Carolina. The rumor is that Jeff Sessions is getting fired and Lindsey Graham is taking his spot as AG. If that happens, she wants that seat.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It still bothers me that over the last year there is a constant stream of neocons into Trump's administration.

NTY - take it for what its worth - is suggesting that there may have been friction between Bolton and Haley over who gets to take the driving seat in UN policy and Bolton may have been overstepping his boundaries in the recent spat over Iran and sanctions on it.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049679603357417472

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049680089347178496

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049679534591827968

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049678300443025409

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049670708777881601


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> My guess for Nikki quitting is that Nikki is running for Lindsey Graham's South Carolina Senate seat in 2020. She was the Governor of South Carolina. The rumor is that Jeff Sessions is getting fired and Lindsey Graham is taking his spot as AG. If that happens, she wants that seat.


It would explain where Lindsey graham found his balls.

They were just hiding underneath the AG application.

Convenient.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So Taylor Swift isnt a white supremacist anymore because she came out in support of a democrat :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Single men can't date anymore due to the current climate of false sexual accusations by radical feminists with an axe to grind.

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I would definitely double check that.
> 
> Here in MD, if you have an ID, you can renew it, and then have them ship you the ID to your home, so you do't even have to take time off work or anything like that.
> 
> If you lose your ID though, it is a pain in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you are making A LOT of assumptions and excuses in this scenario, so i will break it down how I see it, and you tell me where i may be wrong.
> 
> You said your DMV is open Tuesday-Friday between 8-6.
> 
> And that you live about an hour away, so lets say a person works at a job part time (poor people can get full time jobs, but i digress)
> 
> Well a part time job is classified as less than 32 hours a week, so lets say it is between those days Tuesday-Friday 8-5 (thats the only way it would work in the scenario, because any other day they would have a day off)
> 
> Well, most jobs (once again for tax purposes) require you to have an ID to even be employed there, so renewal should be an option as you wouldn't have to take off work for that.
> 
> But even saying that your state is the one that doesn't have a renewal, or the person loses their ID for the day, what is the harm of going to your boss and saying "Hey I need a half day off work tomorrow, I lost my ID and need to get a new one"
> 
> The Social Security office would probably be open on Monday, which would be your day off, you wait to get your Social Security card in the mail, and then, you take a half day off work to go get your ID.
> 
> If you are "the poor"(that is so demeaning how you guys are saying it) I am sure that you being able to have your ID is a priority that you can take 4 hours off work to go get it done, or even 8.
> 
> I am currently in management, I don't know any manager that would be able to keep employees if he is flipping out at someone because they need to take time off to go get their ID.
> 
> Lastly, the person could probably make up the day on Monday, since most businesses are open 5-7 days a week.


I double checked and yes you have to apply for ID in person here in Georgia, you cannot do it online.

Look I'm giving anecdotal evidence from my life and the lives of people I know. Some of them are in the situations I posted about. Can't take time off. Their schedule just doesn't fit it. Their bosses are complete dicks that will not bend on anything. And at least a couple of them did not need to show picture ID to get their jobs, not sure how legal that was. Then there are the elderly that don't have jobs or drive and don't really need ID on a day to day basis. Now absolutely that doesn't describe everyone, but it does describe some which is why I said in my first post that if ID is necessary then make it easy, quick, and free to do. I'm not against voter ID as long as that criteria is satisfied though considering how low in person voter fraud is I don't really see the need for it. Personally with my state I just wish they'd secure the voting machines better. They're using old software, full of holes, with no paper trail.

And I'm not using poor in a demeaning way. That describes a lot of the people I know and myself sometimes. Economically disadvantaged or however you want to say it means that your life is more complicated in some ways than those higher up on the food chain.

*EDIT:* Also, here in my state anything under 40 hours per week is classified as part time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I would definitely double check that.
> 
> Here in MD, if you have an ID, you can renew it, and then have them ship you the ID to your home, so you do't even have to take time off work or anything like that.
> 
> If you lose your ID though, it is a pain in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you are making A LOT of assumptions and excuses in this scenario, so i will break it down how I see it, and you tell me where i may be wrong.
> 
> You said your DMV is open Tuesday-Friday between 8-6.
> 
> And that you live about an hour away, so lets say a person works at a job part time (poor people can get full time jobs, but i digress)
> 
> Well a part time job is classified as less than 32 hours a week, so lets say it is between those days Tuesday-Friday 8-5 (thats the only way it would work in the scenario, because any other day they would have a day off)
> 
> Well, most jobs (once again for tax purposes) require you to have an ID to even be employed there, so renewal should be an option as you wouldn't have to take off work for that.
> 
> But even saying that your state is the one that doesn't have a renewal, or the person loses their ID for the day, what is the harm of going to your boss and saying "Hey I need a half day off work tomorrow, I lost my ID and need to get a new one"
> 
> The Social Security office would probably be open on Monday, which would be your day off, you wait to get your Social Security card in the mail, and then, you take a half day off work to go get your ID.
> 
> If you are "the poor"(that is so demeaning how you guys are saying it) I am sure that you being able to have your ID is a priority that you can take 4 hours off work to go get it done, or even 8.
> 
> I am currently in management, I don't know any manager that would be able to keep employees if he is flipping out at someone because they need to take time off to go get their ID.
> 
> Lastly, the person could probably make up the day on Monday, since most businesses are open 5-7 days a week.


LOL

People are giving you examples of what they had to go through and you are the one making excuses.

Its not easy to an get ID, you could jjust you know google it, and see even more examples of how difficult it is.

I think its funny you still cant show why we should need an ID to vote


----------



## Ryder92

Reap said:


> So Taylor Swift isnt a white supremacist anymore because she came out in support of a democrat :lol


She is suddenly rehabilitated.



Empress said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049679603357417472
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049680089347178496
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049679534591827968
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049678300443025409
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049670708777881601


Bolton sucks. Big time warhawk.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Oh look GOP allowed to suppress more voters

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...-it-harder-for-tribal-north-dakotans-to-vote/

Supreme Court Makes It Harder for Tribal North Dakotans to Vote

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower-court order requiring voters in North Dakota to present certain forms of identification and proof of their residential address in order to cast a ballot in next month’s elections. A case challenging this requirement on behalf of the state’s sizable Native American populations alleged that the requirement would disenfranchise tribal residents, many of whom lack the proper identification and do not have residential addresses on their identification cards. 

The Supreme Court’s order will likely make it harder for Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, considered the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate, to retain her seat in November. Heitkamp won her seat by less than 3,000 votes in 2012 with strong backing from Native Americans, and she is the only statewide elected Democrat. North Dakota Republicans began changing voting rules to make it harder to cast a ballot months after Heitkamp’s victory six years ago. Republicans have claimed the changes to voter ID requirements are intended to stop voter fraud, even though in-person fraud is exceedingly rare. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was sworn in on Monday, did not partake in the decision, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.

North Dakota’s 2017 voter law ID was challenged by Native residents who alleged that the law disproportionately blocked Native Americans from voting. In April, a federal district court judge blocked large portions of the law as discriminatory against Native voters. “The State has acknowledged that Native American communities often lack residential street addresses,” Judge Daniel Hovland wrote. “Nevertheless, under current State law an individual who does not have a ‘current residential street address’ will never be qualified to vote.” According to the website of the Native American Rights Fund, which represents the plaintiffs, many native residents lack residential street addresses because “the U.S. postal service does not provide residential delivery in these rural Indian communities.”As a result, tribal IDs use P.O. boxes, which are not sufficient under North Dakota’s new law—a specification that seems designed to disenfranchise native voters. Hovland’s ruling was in place during the primaries this spring.

But in September, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the law to go into effect. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling Tuesday. In her dissent, Ginsburg argued that the Supreme Court’s order was at odds with one of the top court’s most frequently invoked doctrines on election law: not to change the rules right before an election. By allowing a different set of ID rules in the general election from in the primary, Ginsburg warned, the court was risking widespread confusion and disenfranchisement.

“The risk of voter confusion appears severe here because the injunction against requiring residential-address identification was in force during the primary election and because the Secretary of State’s website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction,” Ginsburg wrote. “Reasonable voters may well assume that the IDs allowing them to vote in the primary election would remain valid in the general election. If the Eighth Circuit’s stay is not vacated, the risk of disfranchisement is large.”

Ginsburg noted that according to the factual record of the case, about 20 percent of voters likely to try to cast a ballot in the midterms will lack the required identification. Another “approximately18,000 North Dakota residents also lack supplemental documentation sufficient to permit them to vote without a qualifying ID,” she noted.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I double checked and yes you have to apply for ID in person here in Georgia, you cannot do it online.


Let me clarify... you can renew online here.

If you lose your ID in MD though, you have to go in person, so I am assuming it is the same in GA



> Look I'm giving anecdotal evidence from my life and the lives of people I know. Some of them are in the situations I posted about. Can't take time off. Their schedule just doesn't fit it. Their bosses are complete dicks that will not bend on anything. And at least a couple of them did not need to show picture ID to get their jobs, not sure how legal that was. Then there are the elderly that don't have jobs or drive and don't really need ID on a day to day basis. Now absolutely that doesn't describe everyone, but it does describe some which is why I said in my first post that if ID is necessary then make it easy, quick, and free to do. I'm not against voter ID as long as that criteria is satisfied though considering how low in person voter fraud is I don't really see the need for it. Personally with my state I just wish they'd secure the voting machines better. They're using old software, full of holes, with no paper trail.


Different states different circumstances, but I do have a friend that lives in Savannah, and she told me it was easier.

Like I said, here in MD it is a mild inconvenience, if you have friends/family in that situation, I hope things get better for them;



> And I'm not using poor in a demeaning way. That describes a lot of the people I know and myself sometimes. Economically disadvantaged or however you want to say it means that your life is more complicated in some ways than those higher up on the food chain


.

I don't think you meant any ill will, it just comes off as classifying them in a group.

I do agree with you that in your situation, it should be more accessible



> *EDIT:* Also, here in my state anything under 40 hours per week is classified as part time.


Here in MD, there are jobs that consider 33 hours full time.

If people are i bad situations, I would say look into some companies like Chipotle, ikea, and others that give benefits to anyone over 20 hours


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL
> 
> People are giving you examples of what they had to go through and you are the one making excuses.
> 
> Its not easy to an get ID, you could jjust you know google it, and see even more examples of how difficult it is.
> 
> I think its funny you still cant show why we should need an ID to vote


Examples?

Ok, sure.

Well, Since I have had to get an ID, I can tell you how it is in MD,

You have to take ID (you can use an employee badge) to the local Social Security office, they will give you a social security card

They ship you out your card, takes about 3-5 business days,

You take said card to MVA, with a copy of a utility bill, or car registration, and you get your license the same day.

Where is the difficult part again? I can take time off work, and I can afford the $25 it costs to replace it, as the fine to drive without it is higher.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Examples?
> 
> Ok, sure.
> 
> Well, Since I have had to get an ID, I can tell you how it is in MD,
> 
> You have to take ID (you can use an employee badge) to the local Social Security office, they will give you a social security card
> 
> They ship you out your card, takes about 3-5 business days,
> 
> You take said card to MVA, with a copy of a utility bill, or car registration, and you get your license the same day.
> 
> Where is the difficult part again? I can take time off work, and I can afford the $25 it costs to replace it, as the fine to drive without it is higher.


You're wasting your time with him regardless of the subject.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Examples?
> 
> Ok, sure.
> 
> Well, Since I have had to get an ID, I can tell you how it is in MD,
> 
> *You have to take ID (you can use an employee badge) *to the local Social Security office, they will give you a social security card
> 
> They ship you out your card, takes about 3-5 business days,
> 
> You take said card to MVA, with a copy of a utility bill, or car registration, and you get your license the same day.
> 
> Where is the difficult part again? I can take time off work, and I can afford the $25 it costs to replace it, as the fine to drive without it is higher.


What if you dont have an ID badge then you are SOL.

Some people cannot take off work, you keep ignoring that. Not everyone can afford the $25.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What if you dont have an ID badge then you are SOL.
> 
> Some people cannot take off work, you keep ignoring that. Not everyone can afford the $25.


This is a cartoonishly simple perception of low income / working class people. They don't have 25 dollars? Really? 

If you don't have 25 dollars to spare you are probably *homeless * and you have much bigger problems than not being able to vote.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> This is a cartoonishly simple perception of low income / working class people. They don't have 25 dollars? Really?
> 
> If you don't have 25 dollars to spare you are probably *homeless * and you have much bigger problems than not being able to vote.


No its not, a lot of people are in a stritct budget and can't afford a spare $25 for an ID.

And AGAIN there is ZERO reason to have an ID voting unless you are pro-voter suppression


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> No its not, a lot of people are in a stritct budget and can't afford a spare $25 for an ID.
> 
> And AGAIN there is ZERO reason to have an ID voting unless you are pro-voter suppression


I am sure if someone cared enough about voter suppression they could pony up the that $25 to help these people instead of spending money on transportation/food/make signs to attend 'protests' against voter ID.

The issue isn't the $25. The issue is how difficult it is to obtain an ID if one doesn't have an existing one because of the difficulty in confirming older information as the institutions that issued them could have closed down and left nothing for the authorities to match them with. Another issue that was brought up is time, that some people just do not have to spare to be physically present to collect them at the place of issue. Both of these situation can be resolved with a better ID issuing system. However, monetary costs to the individual is not a big issue since I am sure non-profits can help with that as is. Making a case against photo ID with a $25 cost as a reason weakens your position.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *No its not, a lot of people are in a stritct budget and can't afford a spare $25 for an ID.*
> 
> And AGAIN there is ZERO reason to have an ID voting unless you are pro-voter suppression


What type of person is on such a strict budget that they cannot set aside 25 dollars for a photo ID? US law requires employers to see proof of identity before hiring someone, so how does someone even have a job without photo ID? 

You are confusing low income workers with *homeless people*.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I am sure if someone cared enough about voter suppression they could pony up the that $25 to help these people instead of spending money on transportation/food/make signs to attend 'protests' against voter ID.
> 
> The issue isn't the $25. The issue is how difficult it is to obtain an ID if one doesn't have an existing one because of the difficulty in confirming older information as the institutions that issued them could have closed down and left nothing for the authorities to match them with. Another issue that was brought up is time, that some people just do not have to spare to be physically present to collect them at the place of issue. Both of these situation can be resolved with a better ID issuing system. However, monetary costs to the individual is not a big issue since I am sure non-profits can help with that as is. Making a case against photo ID with a $25 cost as a reason weakens your position.


I was not even using the $25 fee for making the case against photo IDs DMD brought that up. I was speaking to his point about it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I was not even using the $25 fee for making the case against photo IDs DMD brought that up. I was speaking to his point about it.


You didn't bring it up but you are trying to make a point about how poor people can't afford $25 to get an ID, which clearly isn't the case.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You didn't bring it up but you are trying to make a point about how poor people can't afford $25 to get an ID, which clearly isn't the case.


But it is the case


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> But it is the case


Who wants to vote but cannot afford the $25 to?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Who wants to vote but cannot afford the $25 to?


 A lot of people who are on a strict budget.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> A lot of people who are on a strict budget.


If someone is on such a strict budget that they cannot afford *25 dollars* then they probably also can't afford TV, internet or a smart phone. 

How do they know what they're voting on if they can't even access the news? The newspaper?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> A lot of people who are on a strict budget.


What strict budget doesn't allow for $25 of emergency spending? $25 is less than 2 hours of 'living wage' of $15.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

We need Voter IDs to ensure Russia cannot mess with our Voting anymore.

Do we really want to _*risk*_ having another illegitimate President? 

Voter IDs save Democracy after all we have to ensure the people are represented fairly without Republican or Russian interference!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> What strict budget doesn't allow for $25 of emergency spending? $25 is less than 2 hours of 'living wage' of $15.


 $25 is a lot for the working poor and the working poor don't make a living wage.

I still think its funnu you are focusing on this $25 and not how difficult it is to get an iD and AGAIN there is zero need for voter IDs other than to suppress the vote of the poor and minorities.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

At this point, this is the kind of protest we really need!


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *$25 is a lot for the working poor* and the working poor don't make a living wage.
> 
> I still think its funnu you are focusing on this $25 and not how difficult it is to get an iD and AGAIN there is zero need for voter IDs other than to suppress the vote of the poor and minorities.


No it isn't and you sound silly.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> $25 is a lot for the working poor and the working poor don't make a living wage.
> 
> I still think its funnu you are focusing on this $25 and not how difficult it is to get an iD and AGAIN there is zero need for voter IDs other than to suppress the vote of the poor and minorities.


You are the one that is making the point that poor people can't afford $25 to make an ID. Saving $1 a day allows one to have enough after a month.

My first post in reply to you literally point out what other issues I consider more important in making it difficult for people to get IDs in your country. You are the one that kept the focus on the $25 thing because you are making the point that it is an obstacle for people to get ID.

No doubt it is a tool for voter suppression. But instead of fighting against it, why not focus on improving the ID issuing process so EVERYONE can get ID and vote? Make the issue about improving government services instead of photo ID is the devil.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You are the one that is making the point that poor people can't afford $25 to make an ID. Saving $1 a day allows one to have enough after a month.
> 
> My first post in reply to you literally point out what other issues I consider more important in making it difficult for people to get IDs in your country. You are the one that kept the focus on the $25 thing because you are making the point that it is an obstacle for people to get ID.
> 
> No doubt it is a tool for voter suppression. But instead of fighting against it, why not focus on improving the ID issuing process so EVERYONE can get ID and vote? Make the issue about improving government services instead of photo ID is the devil.


Because there is no point in needing an ID for voting. There is virtually zero voter fraud. Its a non-issue. 

Needing an ID for voting is the devil.

Voting is a right. Anyone who thinks you should have that right taken away because you don't have an ID is against the constitution.

They should make it easier to vote not more difficult with this ID BS.

The GOP knows the only way they can with is by suppressing the vote and that is why they are always trying to do things like voter suppression with IDS or purging voters


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because there is no point in needing an ID for voting. There is virtually zero voter fraud. Its a non-issue.
> 
> Needing an ID for voting is the devil.
> 
> *Voting is a right. Anyone who thinks you should have that right taken away because you don't have an ID is against the constitution.*
> 
> They should make it easier to vote not more difficult with this ID BS.
> 
> The GOP knows the only way they can with is by suppressing the vote and that is why they are always trying to do things like voter suppression with IDS or purging voters


Voting is only a right to U.S. citizens 18 years of age or older who have registered.

If you cannot verify that you are a legal citizen and/or at least 18 years of age, then you cannot vote. If requiring an ID is racist and an example of voter suppression then requiring an ID to buy cigarettes is racist and nothing but smoker suppression.

You are arguing that that there is no need to verify a voter's identity, age or citizenship. You sound silly.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Nikki Haley quit. Another one bites the dust unfortunately


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because there is no point in needing an ID for voting. There is virtually zero voter fraud. Its a non-issue.
> 
> Needing an ID for voting is the devil.
> 
> Voting is a right. Anyone who thinks you should have that right taken away because you don't have an ID is against the constitution.
> 
> They should make it easier to vote not more difficult with this ID BS.
> 
> The GOP knows the only way they can with is by suppressing the vote and that is why they are always trying to do things like voter suppression with IDS or purging voters


Like I said, why not look at it as an opportunity to improve government services? Or is it both parties are simply using the issue to drive up partisan support and don't really care about voters rights at all?

Why not have voter IDs so it will not be an issue in future elections? Why fight progress in making elections less disputed in the future?

The reals costs isn't even in the $25. More costs are associated with getting the information verified or travelling costs or free time. But you tried to make it one to 'win' an argument with quite frankly an embarrassing talking point of how poor people can't spare $25 from their budget.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Why not have voter IDs so it will not be an issue in future elections? Why fight progress in making elections less disputed in the future?


I don't see how that makes it less disputed? I mean it makes those who voted less likely to be fake voters, a problem that doesn't even really exist, but the Democrats will just point to all the other studies that show voter ID laws impact voter turnout and this disproportionately affects ethnic minorities. So they'll dispute it all for sure.

I just don't understand this argument that it only costs X amount and everyone should have one when we KNOW everyone doesn't have one.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I don't see how that makes it less disputed? I mean it makes those who voted less likely to be fake voters, a problem that doesn't even really exist, but the Democrats will just point to all the other studies that show voter ID laws impact voter turnout and this disproportionately affects ethnic minorities. So they'll dispute it all for sure.
> 
> I just don't understand this argument that it only costs X amount and everyone should have one when we KNOW everyone doesn't have one.


But why do these laws suppress turnout? Because it is difficult for those without existing IDs to obtain them. My point is to focus on improving the process to make it easier to obtain an ID and everyone that can vote is able to vote with an ID. This is something both party can work on.

The world is digitised now. The renewal process should be shorter than before. Once the older generations with disputed documents aged out, the law should not be an issue anymore.

Voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility. *shrug*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I don't see how that makes it less disputed? I mean it makes those who voted less likely to be fake voters, a problem that doesn't even really exist, but the Democrats will just point to all the other studies that show voter ID laws impact voter turnout and this disproportionately affects ethnic minorities. So they'll dispute it all for sure.
> 
> I just don't understand this argument that it only costs X amount and everyone should have one when we KNOW everyone doesn't have one.


The best solution is to just abooish the state. 

You don't need voter ID if you don't have a government to vote for


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Something tells me that most people who don't feel the need to obtain a photo ID probably aren't eager voters to begin with.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Something tells me that most people who don't feel the need to obtain a photo ID probably aren't eager voters to begin with.


This is probably the biggest hole in my argument against voter ID, if you don't want or can't be arsed to go get an ID you're probably not bothered about voting so is it really a problem? Especially in the UK where the distances you'd have to go are tiny, we still have 3.5 million people without ID, this must be a lot worse in the vastness of America.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> we still have 3.5 million people without ID, this must be a lot worse in the vastness of America.


The government cannot account for people who don't have ID's. If you don't have an ID, how can the government know that you don't have one. All they can do is use guesses against existing data. 

Both Republicans and Democrats have been caught lying about all kinds of stats and estimates by each other. 

The truth is out there. Somewhere. But no one in America knows what it is. Even an American who HAS ID doesn't always know if their ID is valid or not. So much for having an _informed _population :mj


----------



## Tag89

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

can't really grasp the concept of not having ID, here

your 'voter ID' is just...your ID. i.e driving license (or passport, lol)

no ID and no registered address, you don't get to vote. simple

haven't read the whole thing so if this point has been raised then fair enough

actual voter turnout being low is a whole different matter


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> At this point, this is the kind of protest we really need!


I wonder if he realizes the final straw is the other straw, the kind of straw that breaks the camel's back.

Either way awesome dad joke IRL.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

What makes it for me is how proud of himself he looks :lmao


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> The government cannot account for people who don't have ID's. If you don't have an ID, how can the government know that you don't have one. All they can do is use guesses against existing data.
> 
> Both Republicans and Democrats have been caught lying about all kinds of stats and estimates by each other.
> 
> The truth is out there. Somewhere. But no one in America knows what it is. Even an American who HAS ID doesn't always know if their ID is valid or not. So much for having an _informed _population :mj


"People" don't want to be educated. That's why propaganda makes such a dent into things.

There are restrictions on ID's too, that no one knows about.

The worst part is when someone tries to inform them, they get pissed instead of just learning.

how different would this world be if everyone just read, huh


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/20...2018-georgia-governor-voter-registration.html

Oh look more voter suppression in GA 53,000 voter registrations being held up by the guy running, and 70% of those are black people. GOP cheating again to try and win

ATLANTA — Marsha Appling-Nunez was showing the college students she teaches how to check online if they're registered to vote when she made a troubling discovery. Despite being an active Georgia voter who had cast ballots in recent elections, she was no longer registered.

"I was kind of shocked," said Appling-Nunez, who moved from one Atlanta suburb to another in May and believed she had successfully changed her address on the voter rolls.

"I've always voted. I try to not miss any elections, including local ones," Appling-Nunez said.

She tried re-registering, but with about one month left before a November election that will decide a governor's race and some competitive U.S. House races, Appling-Nunez's application is one of over *53,000 sitting on hold with Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp's office. And unlike Appling-Nunez, many people on that list — which is predominantly black, according to an analysis by The Associated Press *— may not even know their voter registration has been held up.

Tuesday is Georgia's deadline to register and be eligible to vote in the November General Election.

*Kemp, who's also the Republican candidate for governor, is in charge of elections and voter registration in Georgia.*

His Democratic opponent, former state Rep. Stacey Abrams, and voting rights advocacy groups charge that Kemp is systematically using his office to suppress votes and tilt the election, and that his policies disproportionately affect black and minority voters.

Kemp denies it vehemently.

But through a process that Kemp calls voter roll maintenance and his opponents call voter roll purges, *Kemp's office has cancelled over 1.4 million voter registrations since 2012. Nearly 670,000 registrations were cancelled in 2017 alone.
*


Kemp, meanwhile, says Abrams and allied liberal activists are twisting his record of guarding Georgia elections against voter fraud.

His campaign spokesman Ryan Mahoney said in a statement that because of Kemp, "it has never been easier to vote in our state" and pointed to a new online voter registration system and a student engagement program implemented under his tenure


----------



## Jericho-79

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Young voters won't show up to the polls next month. The Dems are gonna fall flat on their faces again. lolz


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Jericho-79 said:


> Young voters won't show up to the polls next month. The Dems are gonna fall flat on their faces again. lolz


The left's obsession with youth has always been problematic. They flaunt the fact that 18-24 year olds skew left as if it's something to be proud of.

Meanwhile of all eligible voters young people are objectively the least experienced and least knowledgeable of the bunch.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The left's obsession with youth has always been problematic. They flaunt the fact that 18-24 year olds skew left as if it's something to be proud of.
> 
> *Meanwhile of all eligible voters young people are objectively the least experienced and least knowledgeable of the bunch*.


LOL that is simply not true. They are way more knowledgeable than all the over 65 years olds that watch fox news


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Meanwhile of all eligible voters young people are objectively the least experienced and least knowledgeable of the bunch.


As opposed to college graduates, who are at least somewhat more knowledgable than non-college graduates.

Ad who skew left, indeed doing so by a considerable distance in 2016.

And thats across all age ranges, so no "Brainwashing modern liberal universities" nonsense, please.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL that is simply not true. They are way more knowledgeable than all the over 65 years olds that watch fox news


18 year olds are smarter than 65 year olds?

So I take it you feel that as you've gotten older, you've also gotten dumber?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> 18 year olds are smarter than 65 year olds?
> 
> So I take it you feel that as you've gotten older, you've also gotten dumber?


18-24 liberal college students/grads are way smarter than the over 65 conservative crowd that watches fox news for sure. its not even close.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



ipickthiswhiterose said:


> As opposed to college graduates, who are at least somewhat more knowledgable than non-college graduates.
> 
> Ad who skew left, indeed doing so by a considerable distance in 2016.
> 
> And thats across all age ranges, so no "Brainwashing modern liberal universities" nonsense, please.


The universities have nothing to do with it. Young people in general skew left, older people skew right. Those are just the facts. More people will convert from Dem to Repub than vice versa. 

With age comes wisdom.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The universities have nothing to do with it. Young people in general skew left, older people skew right. Those are just the facts. More people will convert from Dem to Repub than vice versa.
> 
> With age comes wisdom.


The older crowd, over 60 does not really know how to use the internet, so they get all their info from BS news like Fox and CNN, so they are grossly misinformed, whereas younger people get their news from the internet where they can fact check and get the right info if they want to seek it out.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> 18-24 liberal college students/grads are way smarter than the over 65 conservative crowd that watches fox news for sure. its not even close.


Yup, just as I suspected.

You've gotten dumber.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The older crowd, over 60 does not really know how to use the internet, so they get all their info from BS news like Fox and CNN, so they are grossly misinformed, whereas younger people get their news from the internet where they can fact check and get the right info if they want to seek it out.


So what's your excuse?

You have the internet, you are (presumably) young. Why are you so misinformed?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> So what's your excuse?
> 
> You have the internet, you are (presumably) young. Why are you so misinformed?


what exactly am I misinformed about? Show some examples.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The universities have nothing to do with it. Young people in general skew left, older people skew right. Those are just the facts. More people will convert from Dem to Repub than vice versa.
> 
> With age comes wisdom.


No. Again. Regardless of age, those who are educated to a higher level are leftwards of those who aren't. 

This pattern exists throughout the western world.

As for older voters in the US: Older voters are far more likely to want to the current system than not, hence they lean conservative. This is particularly the case in the US where Reaganomics benefited those who are now older voters in the short term. They didn't have to deal with it when it imploded as they all largely already had a nice nest egg. Which naturally they want to hold on to.

This is all very generalised of course, but then that's what you were being.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> what exactly am I misinformed about? Show some examples.


Yesterday you tried to proclaim that the reason people couldn't obtain ID cards was because they don't have 25 dollars to spare.

Today are you proclaiming that 18 year olds have more wisdom than 65 year olds.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Yesterday you tried to proclaim that the reason people couldn't obtain ID cards was because they don't have 25 dollars to spare.
> 
> Today are you proclaiming that 18 year olds have more wisdom than 65 year olds.


There are a lot of people that cannot afford $25 for an ID you know the ones who the GOP want to suppress their vote. And that was not the only reason I said people cant get IDs, so stop lying.

And 18-24-year-olds are way more informed than 65-year-olds when it comes to politics. It's not even close


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> There are a lot of people that cannot afford $25 for an ID you know the ones who the GOP want to suppress their vote. And that was not the only reason I said people cant get IDs, so stop lying.
> 
> And 18-24-year-olds are way more informed than 65-year-olds when it comes to politics. It's not even close


How am I lying? It wasn't the only reason but it was a reason YOU brought up and YOU continued to argue in favor of. 

And if millenials are more informed why do they have the lowest voter turnout? How does that work? They're so woke that they don't even vote? LOL.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Yup, just as I suspected.
> 
> You've gotten dumber.


Don't bait like this, thanks.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> How am I lying? It wasn't the only reason but it was a reason YOU brought up and YOU continued to argue in favor of.
> 
> And if millenials are more informed why do they have the lowest voter turnout? How does that work? They're so woke that they don't even vote? LOL.


I didn't bring up the $25 thing, someone else claimed on its not that much, which is not true for some people who are on a tight budget or poor.

Being better informed vs voter turnout is irrelevant.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I didn't bring up the $25 thing, someone else claimed on its not that much, which is not true for some people who are on a tight budget or poor.
> 
> Being better informed vs voter turnout is irrelevant.


What is the point of being better informed if you aren't going to do shit about anything? That's like saying you know more about baking a cake but choose not to bake a cake and complain about the taste of a cake someone else baked and how you can do better.

Again, the point of you and the $25 ID isn't who brought it up, but you choosing to die on that hill when it was obviously a bad argument to stand behind. The prohibitive costs isn't even the $25 but the costs of transportation and the costs to get documents verified. YOU choose to argue that $25 is too much for poor people when it is plainly laughable. You exposed your prejudice against poor people by harping on how they cannot afford $25 or how non-profits can't help out with the $25 costs for them.

Own up that it was a bad position to stand behind and move on


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> What is the point of being better informed if you aren't going to do shit about anything? That's like saying you know more about baking a cake but choose not to bake a cake and complain about the taste of a cake someone else baked and how you can do better.
> 
> Again, the point of you and the $25 ID isn't who brought it up, but you choosing to die on that hill when it was obviously a bad argument to stand behind. The prohibitive costs isn't even the $25 but the costs of transportation and the costs to get documents verified. YOU choose to argue that $25 is too much for poor people when it is plainly laughable. You exposed your prejudice against poor people by harping on how they cannot afford $25 or how non-profits can't help out with the $25 costs for them.
> 
> Own up that it was a bad position to stand behind and move on


It's not a bad position when its TRUE. I just think its funny you want to fixate on just that one part of it when that is not the only reason I gave for being against voter ID. But keep pretending it is. 

And $25 is not laughable for the people who need that $25 for food or something else in their budget. It just shows how the pro-ID people have to fixate on this one thing instead of all the other reasons.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's not a bad position when its TRUE. I just think its funny you want to fixate on just that one part of it when that is not the only reason I gave for being against voter ID. But keep pretending it is.
> 
> And $25 is not laughable for the people who need that $25 for food or something else in their budget. It just shows how the pro-ID people have to fixate on this one thing instead of all the other reasons.


What is TRUE is the costs to obtain ID is prohibitive, not a $25 cost that is 2 hours of 'living wage'. I find it laughable that someone that wish to vote can't save up $25 over a month or seek help from voter rights groups to obtain said $25.

It's not like the costs isn't high, it is the $25 argument is weak and allows you to get hit over and over again with. Just admit you made a mistake with that and move on.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Jesus is it really hard to get ID in the US? It's pretty much easy as fuck in Australia. Don't most people have a drivers licence.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus is it really hard to get ID in the US? It's pretty much easy as fuck in Australia. Don't most people have a drivers licence.


I think it is only hard for older people without existing IDs or people born in really remote places where documentations are harder to verify.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus is it really hard to get ID in the US? It's pretty much easy as fuck in Australia. Don't most people have a drivers licence.


Yes it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.319e4d7c6100


HOUSTON — In his wallet, Anthony Settles carries an expired Texas identification card, his Social Security card and an old student ID from the University of Houston, where he studied math and physics decades ago. What he does not have is the one thing that he needs to vote this presidential election: a current Texas photo ID.

For Settles to get one of those, his name has to match his birth certificate — and it doesn’t. In 1964, when he was 14, his mother married and changed his last name. After Texas passed a new voter-ID law, officials told Settles he had to show them his name-change certificate from 1964 to qualify for a new identification card to vote.

So with the help of several lawyers, Settles tried to find it, searching records in courthouses in the D.C. area, where he grew up. But they could not find it. To obtain a new document changing his name to the one he has used for 51 years, Settles has to go to court, a process that would cost him more than $250 — more than he is willing to pay.

“It has been a bureaucratic nightmare,” said Settles, 65, a retired engineer. “The intent of this law is to suppress the vote. I feel like I am not wanted in this state.”


In November, 17 states will have voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. Eleven of those states will require their residents to show a photo ID. They include swing states such as Wisconsin and states with large African American and Latino populations, such as North Carolina and Texas. On Tuesday, the entire 15-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans is to begin hearing a case regarding the legality of the Texas law, considered to be the most stringent in the country.

Supporters say that everyone should easily be able to get a photo ID and that the requirement is needed to combat voter fraud. But many election experts say that the process for obtaining a photo ID can be far more difficult than it looks for hundreds of thousands of people across the country who do not have the required photo identification cards. Those most likely to be affected are elderly citizens, African Americans, Hispanics and low-income residents.

“A lot of people don’t realize what it takes to obtain an ID without the proper identification and papers,” said Abbie Kamin, a lawyer who has worked with the Campaign Legal Center to help Texans obtain the proper identification to vote. “Many people will give up and not even bother trying to vote.”

A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.

Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport, according to Wendy Weiser of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R), compares his state’s new voter-ID requirement to what is needed for “boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed.” Texas officials, who say the laws are needed to combat possible voter fraud, recently said in court papers that the Justice Department and civil rights groups suing the state are not able to find anyone “who would face a substantial obstacle to voting.”

But former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. has called the costs associated for voters seeking a photo ID a “poll tax,” referring to fees that some Southern states used to disenfranchise blacks during the Jim Crow era of laws enforcing racial segregation between the late 1800s through 1965.

Republicans ‘giddy’
Soon after Obama’s election, a surge of Republican-led state legislatures passed laws requiring photo IDs.

“Voters who have to show ID constantly in their everyday lives certainly don’t see ID as a problem,” said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “It is a .common-sense, basic requirement needed to ensure election integrity, which is an essential part of free and fair elections.”

This lawyer is trying to help people without photo ID get registered to vote
Texas lawyer tries to get people without photo ID registered to vote (Youtube/Campaign Legal Center)

Opponents say that the laws were designed to target people more likely to vote Democratic.

Last week, during the federal trial on Wisconsin’s voter-ID law, a former Republican staffer testified that GOP senators were “giddy” about the idea that the state’s 2011 voter-ID law might keep Democrats, particularly minorities in Milwaukee, from voting and help them win at the polls. “They were politically frothing at the mouth,” said the aide, Todd Allbaugh.

A recent voter-ID study by political scientists at the University of California at San Diego analyzed turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and found “substantial drops in turnout for minorities under strict voter ID laws.”

“These results suggest that by instituting strict photo ID laws, states could minimize the influence of voters on the left and could dramatically alter the political leaning of the electorate,” the study concluded.

The question of whether photo IDs are difficult to obtain has become central to cases across the country, where government and civil rights lawyers are challenging new state laws.

Three courts have in fact struck down the voter-ID law in Texas, but the state’s governor has not backed down and has promised to keep it in effect in November.

In 2012, a federal court in Washington concluded that the burden of obtaining a state voter-ID certificate would weigh disproportionately on minorities living in poverty, with many having to travel as much as 200 to 250 miles round trip.

“That law will almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty,” wrote David S. Tatel, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the panel’s 56-page opinion.

Voter-ID laws are also being litigated in North Carolina and Virginia, in addition to Texas and Wisconsin. Election experts predict that one of these cases could go to the Supreme Court before November.

‘A lot of them just give up’
Many of the residents struggling to obtain a valid photo ID are elderly and poor and were born in homes rather than hospitals. As a result, birth certificates were often lost or names were misspelled in official city records.

Hargie Randall, 72, was born in his family’s home in Huntsville, Tex., and has lived in the state his entire life. Randall, now living in Houston’s low-income Fifth Ward neighborhood, has several health problems and such poor eyesight that he is legally blind. He can’t drive and has to ask others for rides.

After Texas implemented its new law, Randall went to the Department of Public Safety (the Texas agency that handles driver’s licenses and identification cards) three times to try to get a photo ID to vote. Each time Randall was told he needed different items. First, he was told he needed three forms of identification. He came back and brought his Medicaid card, bills and a current voter registration card from voting in past elections.

“I thought that because I was on record for voting, I could vote again,” Randall said.

But he was told he still needed more documentation, such as a certified copy of his birth certificate.

Records of births before 1950, such as Randall’s, are not on a central computer and are located only in the county clerk’s office where the person was born.

For Randall, that meant an hour-long drive to Huntsville, where his lawyers found a copy of his birth certificate.

But that wasn’t enough. With his birth certificate in hand, Randall went to the DPS office in Houston with all the necessary documents. But, DPS officials still would not issue him a photo ID because of a clerical mistake on his birth certificate. One letter was off in his last name — “Randell” instead of “Randall” — so his last name was spelled slightly different than on all his other documents.

Kamin, the lawyer, asked the DPS official if they could pull up Randall’s prior driver’s-license information, as he once had a state-issued ID. The official told her that the state doesn’t keep records of prior identification after five years, and there was nothing they could do to pull up that information.

Kamin was finally able to prove to a DPS supervisor that there was a clerical error and was able to verify Randall’s identity by showing other documents.

But Myrtle Delahuerta, 85, who lives across town from Randall, has tried unsuccessfully for two years to get her ID. She has the same problem of her birth certificate not matching her pile of other legal documents that she carts from one government office to the next. The disabled woman, who has difficulty walking, is applying to have her name legally changed, a process that will cost her more than $300 and has required a background check and several trips to government offices.

“I hear from people nearly weekly who can’t get an ID either because of poverty, transportation issues or because of the government’s incompetence,” said Chad W. Dunn, a lawyer with Brazil & Dunn in Houston, who has specialized in voting rights work for 15 years.

“Sometimes government officials don’t know what the law requires,” Dunn said. “People take a day off work to go down to get the so-called free birth certificates. People who are poor, with no car and no Internet access, get up, take the bus, transfer a couple of times, stand in line for an hour and then are told they don’t have the right documents or it will cost them money they don’t have.”

“A lot of them just give up,” Dunn said.


----------



## nonogs

yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus is it really hard to get ID in the US? It's pretty much easy as fuck in Australia. Don't most people have a drivers licence.


 It is not that hard unless you are an illegal or a retard.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Without an ID you may be prohibited from working, driving, purchasing adult products and medicines, renting a house, buying a house, leasing a car, opening a bank account, boarding an airplane, joining a gym, acquiring a loan, having access to casinos and other adult venues... you literally cannot even partake in the everyday experience of living in America without having some form of photo ID.

There is no excuse not to have a photo ID. The obstacles in place are not nearly as treacherous as you are making it out to be. If someone wanted to obtain one, they would. 

And if they don't, then chances are they weren't planning on voting anyway.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Without an ID you may be prohibited from working, driving, purchasing adult products and medicines, renting a house, buying a house, leasing a car, opening a bank account, boarding an airplane, joining a gym, acquiring a loan, having access to casinos and other adult venues... you literally cannot even partake in the everyday experience of living in America without having some form of photo ID.
> 
> There is no excuse not to have a photo ID. The obstacles in place are not nearly as treacherous as you are making it out to be. If someone wanted to obtain one, they would.
> 
> And if they don't, then chances are they weren't planning on voting anyway.


Nothing you said there has anything to do with needing an ID to vote


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nothing you said there has anything to do with needing an ID to vote


You have to be a legal citizen to vote, correct? You have to be 18, correct? You have to be registered, correct?

How does one prove they are an eligible voter if not for some form of ID? Enlighten me.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It is likely that you are more in line with your indoctrination in the initial few years rather than the distant future, when you've had a bigger variety of experiences.

This is probably the reason the younger college crowd skew left. Not that the right do not make attempts, but it is targeted at an older audience, primarily due to the left's monopoly on the education system.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Whichever side you belong to, you will still end up being a sheep to someone else with more power unless you have the ambition and drive to make a difference under whichever system.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

or you could go sit under a tree, put on some forest, close your eyes and have visions of the beyondscape :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Fox News - Jamie Lee Curtis wields firearms in new 'Halloween' movie despite advocating for gun control


:confused

In other news, Anthony Hopkins eats human flesh in Silence of the Lambs but is against cannibalism. The fucking state of main stream media (Yes including the left).


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> :confused
> 
> In other news, Anthony Hopkins eats human flesh in Silence of the Lambs but is against cannibalism. The fucking state of main stream media (Yes including the left).


Eh you're right but if I could play devil's advocate for a moment, maybe they have a point.

Anthony Hopkins was portraying a villain in his movie, Jamie Lee Curtis will be portraying the hero... more specifically the "good guy with a gun". 

She's aggressively in opposition to this on social media yet glorifies it in her paid work. It is kind of hypocritical.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Eh you're right but if I could play devil's advocate for a moment, maybe they have a point.
> 
> Anthony Hopkins was portraying a villain in his movie, Jamie Lee Curtis will be portraying the hero... more specifically the "good guy with a gun".
> 
> She's aggressively in opposition to this on social media yet glorifies it in her paid work. It is kind of hypocritical.


A movie is a form of entertainment. Not an instruction manual for life.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> You have to be a legal citizen to vote, correct? You have to be 18, correct? You have to be registered, correct?
> 
> How does one prove they are an eligible voter if not for some form of ID? Enlighten me.


It's not like elections sneak up on you either. You have two years in between major elections. No one who is here legally can't take 2 hours out of 2 years to get that done.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> A movie is a form of entertainment. Not an instruction manual for life.


That's not the point.

The fact is JLC doesn't believe in the "good guy with a gun" yet she'll play and glorify one for a paycheck.

It would be like a hardcore feminist who's against the objectification of women lining up to play stripper #7 in the next Young Thug video while they pour champagne over her tits.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Eh you're right but if I could play devil's advocate for a moment, maybe they have a point.
> 
> Anthony Hopkins was portraying a villain in his movie, Jamie Lee Curtis will be portraying the hero... more specifically the "good guy with a gun".
> 
> She's aggressively in opposition to this on social media yet glorifies it in her paid work. It is kind of hypocritical.


She's aggressively in favour of gun control. She has NEVER been in opposition to sensible gun ownership at all.

Even if she was, its a movie. (Its going to be shit)



> That doesn't make her anti-gun, she clarifies. "I fully support the Bill of Rights. And fully support the Second Amendment. And have absolutely no problem with people owning firearms if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles – which are weapons also."


The fact she shoots Michael Myers is just further proof that white men are in trouble.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> The fact is JLC doesn't believe in the "good guy with a gun" yet she'll play and glorify one for a paycheck.
> 
> It would be like a hardcore feminist who's against the objectification of women lining up to play stripper #7 in the next Young Thug video while they pour champagne over her tits.


People on the "left" and the "right" keep denying that there is such a thing as the horseshoe effect and yet they continue to make statements that prove the legitimacy of that theory.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> People on the "left" and the "right" keep denying that there is such a thing as the horseshoe effect and yet they continue to make statements that prove the legitimacy of that theory.


What's the horseshoe effect?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> What's the horseshoe effect?


Meant to say Horseshoe Theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory



> In political science and also popular discourse,[1] the horseshoe theory asserts that the far left and the far right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe. The theory is attributed to French philosopher and writer Jean-Pierre Faye.[2] Proponents of the theory point to a number of similarities between the far-left and the far-right, including their supposed propensity to gravitate to authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Horsehoe theory has been much criticised,[3][4] and does not currently enjoy support within academic circles.[4][5]


From Maajid Nawaz: 



> As the political horseshoe theory attributed to Jean-Pierre Faye highlights, if we travel far-left enough, we find the very same sneering, nasty and reckless bully-boy tactics used by the far-right. The two extremes of the political spectrum end up meeting like a horseshoe, at the top, which to my mind symbolizes totalitarian control from above. In their quest for ideological purity, Stalin and Hitler had more in common than modern neo-Nazis and far-left agitators would care to admit.[10]


This one is more of a meme. I don't agree with all of the categorization, but I think it gives you a basic-ish idea. 










From the rationalwiki (I like this better)



> The horseshoe theory in political science stipulates that the far-left and far-right are more similar to each other in essentials than either is to the political center.
> 
> It was formulated by the French post-postmodernist philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye, who believed that the extremes of the political spectrum both represented totalitarianism of different kinds; this meant that the political spectrum should not be described as a linear bar with the two ends representing the far-left and right being ideologically the furthest apart from each other, but as a horseshoe in which the two ends are closer to each other than to the center.
> 
> The same phenomenon applies in the various competing monotheisms as well, where professed arch-enemies like Christian dominionists and the Muslim Taliban actually share views on most topics, including on consumer culture, abortion, feminism, drug use, homosexuality and so on.
> 
> Nationalists from different nations and race supremacists from different ethnic groups (white supremacy, black supremacy) also share the majority of their political outlook with their rival cranks, not with the majority.


Rationalwiki comments on all aspects of the far left and the far right and attempts to draw attention to the similarities: 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

For example. For every Fox News shit-piece, there is a rivaling Huffpo shitpiece:










Funny thing is, they both fail to see how they are one and the same pile of dog feces.

This is also very interesting. Here is what someone on the far right said about the Horseshoe Theory: 










In contrast, here is what someone on the far left said about it: 










:mj4


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Meant to say Horseshoe Theory:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
> 
> 
> 
> From Maajid Nawaz:
> 
> 
> 
> This one is more of a meme. I don't agree with all of the categorization, but I think it gives you a basic-ish idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the rationalwiki (I like this better)
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalwiki comments on all aspects of the far left and the far right and attempts to draw attention to the similarities:
> 
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
> 
> For example. For every Fox News shit-piece, there is a rivaling Huffpo shitpiece:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, they both fail to see how they are one and the same pile of dog feces.
> 
> This is also very interesting. Here is what someone on the far right said about the Horseshoe Theory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast, here is what someone on the far left said about it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :mj4


Interesting theory.

I think it goes back to playing for a team rather than thinking as an individual.

Sometimes people would rather side with the team, than just say "hey this player is bad, lets get rid of him"


I did it myself with Obama, it makes you sound foolish at times, but some people will argue just because they don't want their team to be wrong.

Or I could be completely wrong, who knows.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

In other news billionaire who benefits from billions of dollars of tax exemptions and government contracts returns some of the money to Flint. 

But it's a good thing. Not knocking him for doing something good when he can actually afford to do it. 

It's been years and no capitalists or socialists have done anything to resolve the crisis.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> /QUOTE]
> 
> so that is where Dean Ambrose got his nickname from


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> The fact is JLC doesn't believe in the "good guy with a gun" yet she'll play and glorify one for a paycheck.
> 
> It would be like a hardcore feminist who's against the objectification of women lining up to play stripper #7 in the next Young Thug video while they pour champagne over her tits.


Michael C Hall played a anti hero serial killer on a TV show. I'm sure he's against killing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> The fact is JLC doesn't believe in the "good guy with a gun" yet she'll play and glorify one for a paycheck.
> 
> It would be like a hardcore feminist who's against the objectification of women lining up to play stripper #7 in the next Young Thug video while they pour champagne over her tits.


Well in home alone 2 Trump helped reunite a kid with his family but in real life........


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Well in home alone 2 Trump helped reunite a kid with his family but in real life........


:rileyclap


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

'Snowflake' Anne Coulter backed out of a debate with Kyle Kulinski, might now be getting a debate with Jesse Lee Peterson. That is a big disappointment, no one takes Jesse Lee seriously but Anne still, mysteriously, has some clout among right wingers and no matter whether you agree with Kyles policies he would destroy Anne.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Speaking of the truly great Ann Coulter, she has a fantastic new article out recapping the Kavanaugh saga with her trademark wit and intellect.  

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-10-10.html#read_more


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050802087745994752
Get rekt you hysterical children (the adults, not the actual children) :banderas


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Remember when Taylor Swift says she was voting for a couple of Democrats? Well.....


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Well, well, well



> On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resentful. Team Resentment is manned—pun very much intended—by people who are predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white “allies” do their dutiful part). These teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.
> 
> Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” most Americans don’t fit into either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest—including a general aversion to PC culture.
> 
> Read: An optimist’s guide to political correctness
> 
> The study was written by More in Common, an organization founded in memory of Jo Cox, the British MP who was murdered in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. It is based on a nationally representative poll with 8,000 respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus groups conducted from December 2017 to September 2018.
> 
> If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.
> 
> According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”
> 
> Most members of the “exhausted majority,” and then some, dislike political correctness. Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.
> 
> Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness—and it turns out race isn’t, either.
> 
> Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness. As one 40-year-old American Indian in Oklahoma said in his focus group, according to the report:
> 
> It seems like everyday you wake up something has changed … Do you say Jew? Or Jewish? Is it a black guy? African-American? … You are on your toes because you never know what to say. So political correctness in that sense is scary.
> 
> The one part of the standard narrative that the data partially affirm is that African Americans are most likely to support political correctness. But the difference between them and other groups is much smaller than generally supposed: Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. This means that they are only four percentage points less likely than whites, and only five percentage points less likely than the average, to believe that political correctness is a problem.
> 
> If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and education.
> 
> While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.
> 
> Political tribe—as defined by the authors—is an even better predictor of views on political correctness. Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.
> 
> Read: The threat of tribalism
> 
> So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.
> 
> One obvious question is what people mean by “political correctness.” In the extended interviews and focus groups, participants made clear that they were concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them. But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind.
> 
> There is, however, plenty of additional support for the idea that the social views of most Americans are not nearly as neatly divided by age or race as is commonly believed. According to the Pew Research Center, for example, only 26 percent of black Americans consider themselves liberal. And in the More in Common study, nearly half of Latinos argued that “many people nowadays are too sensitive to how Muslims are treated,” while two in five African Americans agreed that “immigration nowadays is bad for America.”
> 
> In the days before “Hidden Tribes” was published, I ran a little experiment on Twitter, asking my followers to guess what percentage of Americans believe that political correctness is a problem in this country. The results were striking: Nearly all of my followers underestimated the extent to which most Americans reject political correctness. Only 6 percent gave the right answer. (When I asked them how people of color regard political correctness, their guesses were, unsurprisingly, even more wildly off.)
> 
> Obviously, my followers on Twitter are not a representative sample of America. But as their largely supportive feelings about political correctness indicate, they are probably a decent approximation for a particular intellectual milieu to which I also belong: politically engaged, highly educated, left-leaning Americans—the kinds of people, in other words, who are in charge of universities, edit the nation’s most important newspapers and magazines, and advise Democratic political candidates on their campaigns.
> 
> So the fact that we are so widely off the mark in our perception of how most people feel about political correctness should probably also make us rethink some of our other basic assumptions about the country.
> 
> It is obvious that certain elements on the right mock instances in which political correctness goes awry in order to win the license to spew outright racial hatred. And it is understandable that, in the eyes of some progressives, this makes anybody who dares to criticize political correctness a witting tool of—or a useful idiot for—the right. But that’s not fair to the Americans who feel deeply alienated by woke culture. Indeed, while 80 percent of Americans believe that political correctness has become a problem in the country, even more, 82 percent, believe that hate speech is also a problem.
> 
> It turns out that while progressive activists tend to think that only hate speech is a problem, and devoted conservatives tend to think that only political correctness is a problem, a clear majority of all Americans holds a more nuanced point of view: They abhor racism. But they don’t think that the way we now practice political correctness represents a promising way to overcome racial injustice.
> 
> The study should also make progressives more self-critical about the way in which speech norms serve as a marker of social distinction. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the affluent and highly educated people who call others out if they use “problematic” terms or perpetrate an act of “cultural appropriation.” But what the vast majority of Americans seem to see—at least according to the research conducted for “Hidden Tribes”—is not so much genuine concern for social justice as the preening display of cultural superiority.
> 
> David Frum: Every culture appropriates
> 
> For the millions upon millions of Americans of all ages and all races who do not follow politics with rapt attention, and who are much more worried about paying their rent than about debating the prom dress worn by a teenager in Utah, contemporary callout culture merely looks like an excuse to mock the values or ignorance of others. As one 57- year-old woman in Mississippi fretted:
> 
> The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don’t term it right you discriminate them. It’s like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don’t know. But if you don’t know then there is something seriously wrong with you.
> 
> The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue could do damage to the institutions that the woke elite collectively run. A publication whose editors think they represent the views of a majority of Americans when they actually speak to a small minority of the country may eventually see its influence wane and its readership decline. And a political candidate who believes she is speaking for half of the population when she is actually voicing the opinions of one-fifth is likely to lose the next election.
> 
> In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real, when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.


https://web.archive.org/web/20181011221758/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

35 Times Men Were Falsely Accused of Sexual Assault

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37090/35-times-men-were-falsely-accused-sexual-assault-kassy-dillon

So many dudes getting expelled from school, going to prison, and having their reputations ruined because a woman lied about the thing the left claims women never lie about. :lauren


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> 35 Times Men Were Falsely Accused of Sexual Assault
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/37090/35-times-men-were-falsely-accused-sexual-assault-kassy-dillon
> 
> So many dudes getting expelled from school, going to prison, and having their reputations ruined because a woman lied about the thing the left claims women never lie about. :lauren


The absolute insanity in believing ALL women is that the false accusations severely damage the credibility of those that actually were assaulted. This is obvious to any rational person but typical of crazies on the left.

Also if only all those guys had kept calenders detailing what they did on a daily basis :brady6


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> 'Snowflake' Anne Coulter backed out of a debate with Kyle Kulinski, might now be getting a debate with Jesse Lee Peterson. That is a big disappointment, no one takes Jesse Lee seriously but Anne still, mysteriously, has some clout among right wingers and no matter whether you agree with Kyles policies he would destroy Anne.


Of course she did, she would get embarassed. I want to see Kyle debate Ben Sharpiro.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Proud boys lol. Even our gangsters suck now.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050802087745994752
> Get rekt you hysterical children (the adults, not the actual children) :banderas


These people are worse than parents who force their kids to go to church.



MrMister said:


> The absolute insanity in believing ALL women is that the false accusations severely damage the credibility of those that actually were assaulted. This is obvious to any rational person but typical of crazies on the left.
> 
> Also if only all those guys had kept calenders detailing what they did on a daily basis :brady6


These mongs also make it hard for actual victims to be believed or come forward. 

These people hurt their causes more than they help, they're basically a recruiting tool for those they oppose.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The proud boys thing is still hilarious to me because the whole thing was a originally just a goof by Gavin McInnes. Then a bunch of idiots took it seriously. McInnes found he could make money off of it and started treating it as a serious endeavor.

It was just him fucking around coming up with whatever bullshit he could think of. Look at how you become a level 2 Proud Boy: five or more Proud Boys punch a recruit until he names five breakfast cereals. How is that not obviously someone just making up bullshit for a goof? And his dumbass followers took it seriously. fpalm

Wasn't ever a viewer of McInnes's show, but here's what I remember reading about how the whole group started:

McInnes had a show and his producer was a millennial virgin. Gavin mocked him relentlessly for not wanting to get laid, for liking Broadway shows, and watching porn on his laptop.

So, Ben says his favorite Broadway show was Aladdin. Gavin asked to see a clip and Ben chose to play the song 'Proud of your Boy'. Gavin mocked it, calling it gay and not something any father would be proud of their son for liking.

Then Gavin began saying "proud of your boy" to callers, sarcastically. He also started talking about how millennials need to stop jerking off and watching porn, because it would force them to get off the couch and go out and meet women and have sex.

Over a short time it morphed into Proud Boys. His dumbest fans, that didn't get it was a joke, started setting up chapters and getting Proud Boy tattoos. McInness seeing money in this embraced western chauvinism and it went from there. It all started as a joke about starting a fraternity of millennial men that was anti political correctness and anti masturbation. McInnes probably laughs himself to death inside at the dumb sheep in his movement.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course she did, she would get embarassed. I want to see Kyle debate Ben Sharpiro.


I'd rather see him debate a potted plant instead of Jesse Lee.

That guy is horrible, its like someone just turned a camera on and told their grandfather to start talking.

I would say that Dinesh D'Souza would have bee a great opponent for Kyle


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> The proud boys thing is still hilarious to me because the whole thing was a originally just a goof by Gavin McInnes. Then a bunch of idiots took it seriously. McInnes found he could make money off of it and started treating it as a serious endeavor.
> 
> It was just him fucking around coming up with whatever bullshit he could think of. Look at how you become a level 2 Proud Boy: five or more Proud Boys punch a recruit until he names five breakfast cereals. How is that not obviously someone just making up bullshit for a goof? And his dumbass followers took it seriously. fpalm
> 
> Wasn't ever a viewer of McInnes's show, but here's what I remember reading about how the whole group started:
> 
> McInnes had a show and his producer was a millennial virgin. Gavin mocked him relentlessly for not wanting to get laid, for liking Broadway shows, and watching porn on his laptop.
> 
> So, Ben says his favorite Broadway show was Aladdin. Gavin asked to see a clip and Ben chose to play the song 'Proud of your Boy'. Gavin mocked it, calling it gay and not something any father would be proud of their son for liking.
> 
> Then Gavin began saying "proud of your boy" to callers, sarcastically. He also started talking about how millennials need to stop jerking off and watching porn, because it would force them to get off the couch and go out and meet women and have sex.
> 
> Over a short time it morphed into Proud Boys. His dumbest fans, that didn't get it was a joke, started setting up chapters and getting Proud Boy tattoos. McInness seeing money in this embraced western chauvinism and it went from there. It all started as a joke about starting a fraternity of millennial men that was anti political correctness and anti masturbation. McInnes probably laughs himself to death inside at the dumb sheep in his movement.


The whole thing is confusing, people on the "Left" call them nazis when the Alt Right hates them and half their members aren't even white. Gavin himself has been called a Nazi, he's a douche but he isn't a Nazi. 

I don't think anyone does any sort of research. I've watched some of Gavin's videos, mostly he talks about guys meeting girls, working to goals in their life, some traditionalism etc. I've not seen him advocate for any racist stuff. 

People make me sad. :crying:


----------



## Martins

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

People who don't care for politics in 2018 sure as hell are missing a lot, what a time this is.

Yesterday, former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tweeted about the 52nd anniversary of the foundation of the Black Panther Party, and ended it with a fucking Tupac quote :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Imran Khan is silent in this.

This poor woman has spent more than a decade rotting away in jail on a false accusation of blasphemy and under Pakistani retarded law she's supposed to be hanged for it. 

Of course, if she isn't hanged, they'll Lynch and kill her anyways.










-----

On another note. Congratulations to Canadians for finally giving themselves the freedom to do something that they should never have taken away from themselves in the first place tomorrow.


----------



## dele

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



dele said:


> I like how the DNC pretends there isn't this massive rift in the party. It's very similar to the attitudes of the rich and powerful towards most things: "Let's just pretend it doesn't exist and it'll eventually go away." The DNC should (read: fucking better) make gains in both the house and the senate in a few months. That being said, if they don't get their house in order soon, 2020 is going to be a shellacking. It's easy to accomplish too. Run on the following few concepts (trigger warning bama):
> 
> 
> Reduce military spending
> Tax the rich
> Expand medicare to everyone as a public option
> Take cannabis off of the controlled substances list
> 
> Was that so fucking hard? For these nincompoops, it sure is.


I posted this on the first page of the Donald Trump thread a few months ago. Luckily for all of us, the Democrats are running this exact playbook and are looking to make gains in the house and senate.

LOL just kidding, Elizabeth Warren posted a video on Twitter boasting about her being 1/64 Cherokee and how that makes it okay that she used it to get scholarships.

What a bunch of fucking morons.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



dele said:


> I posted this on the first page of the Donald Trump thread a few months ago. Luckily for all of us, the Democrats are running this exact playbook and are looking to make gains in the house and senate.
> 
> LOL just kidding, Elizabeth Warren posted a video on Twitter boasting about her being 1/64 Cherokee and how that makes it okay that she used it to get scholarships.
> 
> What a bunch of fucking morons.


I really have no clue at all what convinces anyone in America that Democrats aren't just the more minority _appeasing __face _of what is essentially a right wing party. 

America does not have a true left wing party at all. 

The primary reason why progress is so slow here is because they're both essentially the same party and when there's a switch, the real reason why nothing changes is because underneath the public debates, they all believe the same things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Of course, more cheating by GOP in GA for voter suppression, only way GOP can win is by cheating and they usually get away with it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> The proud boys thing is still hilarious to me because the whole thing was a originally just a goof by Gavin McInnes. Then a bunch of idiots took it seriously. McInnes found he could make money off of it and started treating it as a serious endeavor.
> 
> It was just him fucking around coming up with whatever bullshit he could think of. Look at how you become a level 2 Proud Boy: five or more Proud Boys punch a recruit until he names five breakfast cereals. How is that not obviously someone just making up bullshit for a goof? And his dumbass followers took it seriously. fpalm
> 
> Wasn't ever a viewer of McInnes's show, but here's what I remember reading about how the whole group started:
> 
> McInnes had a show and his producer was a millennial virgin. Gavin mocked him relentlessly for not wanting to get laid, for liking Broadway shows, and watching porn on his laptop.
> 
> So, Ben says his favorite Broadway show was Aladdin. Gavin asked to see a clip and Ben chose to play the song 'Proud of your Boy'. Gavin mocked it, calling it gay and not something any father would be proud of their son for liking.
> 
> Then Gavin began saying "proud of your boy" to callers, sarcastically. He also started talking about how millennials need to stop jerking off and watching porn, because it would force them to get off the couch and go out and meet women and have sex.
> 
> Over a short time it morphed into Proud Boys. His dumbest fans, that didn't get it was a joke, started setting up chapters and getting Proud Boy tattoos. McInness seeing money in this embraced western chauvinism and it went from there. It all started as a joke about starting a fraternity of millennial men that was anti political correctness and anti masturbation. McInnes probably laughs himself to death inside at the dumb sheep in his movement.


The saddest thing is that Gavin was just a comedian who realized that politics was a big fat paycheck. He's not a chauvinistic pig ... That's just an exaggerated aspect of his media _persona_. It's true though that there are people who are absolutely incapable of separating _personas _from _personalities_. 

He has a wife and a family and no way if his views had any real impact on his personal life or even mattered would he have had a successful marriage in a place like Canada.

Like almost all of today's political "pundits" he got popular by "sticking it" to the lowest hanging fruit he could find. 

Not one of these people in the modern internet media landscape ever actually debates with someone who knows more than just some buzzwords. And when they do, they get their asses handed to them, and their fans close their ears and scream la la la ... Example of this is Peterson who is getting torn apart by many people word for word, but his fans are completely ignoring all actual criticism. 

It's the cult effect.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The whole thing is confusing, people on the "Left" call them nazis when the Alt Right hates them and half their members aren't even white. Gavin himself has been called a Nazi, he's a douche but he isn't a Nazi.
> 
> I don't think anyone does any sort of research. I've watched some of Gavin's videos, mostly he talks about guys meeting girls, working to goals in their life, some traditionalism etc. I've not seen him advocate for any racist stuff.
> 
> People make me sad. :crying:


The Left has called Ben Shapiro a Nazi. He's jewish. I wouldn't take anyone who calls someone a Nazi seriously.


----------



## Cowabunga

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

David Duke supports Bolsonaro, Brazil's new President. Bolsonaro, however, rejects his support: 

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/n...Support-for-Jair-Bolsonaro-20181016-0017.html

Bolsonaro seems like quite a character. If Americans thought Trump said some controversial things already then they should listen to things Bolsonaro has said.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Cowabunga said:


> David Duke supports Bolsonaro, Brazil's new President. Bolsonaro, however, rejects his support:
> 
> https://www.telesurtv.net/english/n...Support-for-Jair-Bolsonaro-20181016-0017.html
> 
> Bolsonaro seems like quite a character. If Americans thought Trump said some controversial things already then they should listen to things Bolsonaro has said.


I actually saw some of his antics. That dude gives no fucks.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.
> 
> The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a public access television network is considered a state actor, which can be sued for First Amendment violations.
> 
> The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.
> 
> That could shape the ability of companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet's Google to control the content on their platforms as lawmakers clamor for more regulation and activists on the left and right spar over issues related to censorship and harassment.
> 
> The Supreme Court accepted the case on Friday. It is the first case taken by a reconstituted high court after Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation earlier this month.
> Facebook says security breach affected 30M, not 50M, accounts
> Facebook says security breach affected 30M, not 50M, accounts
> 4:31 PM ET Fri, 12 Oct 2018 | 01:02
> 
> On its face, the case has nothing to do with social media at all. Rather, the facts of the case concern public access television, and two producers who claim they were punished for expressing their political views. The producers, DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez, say that Manhattan Neighborhood Network suspended them for expressing views that were critical of the network.
> 
> In making the argument to the justices that the case was worthy of review, attorneys for MNN said the court could use the case to resolve a lingering dispute over the power of social media companies to regulate the content on their platforms.
> 
> While the First Amendment is meant to protect citizens against government attempts to limit speech, there are certain situations in which private companies can be subject to First Amendment liability. Attorneys for MNN have made the case that social media companies are clearly not government actors. But in raising the question, they have provided the Supreme Court an opportunity to weigh in.
> 
> "We stand at a moment when the very issue at the heart of this case—the interplay between private entities, nontraditional media, and the First Amendment—has been playing out in the courts, in other branches of government, and in the media itself," attorneys for MNN wrote in their final plea to the justices to take up the case.
> 
> A ruling against MNN on the broad question it has asked the court to consider could open social media companies to First Amendment suits, which would force them to limit the actions they take to control the content on their platforms.
> 
> The court could also rule more narrowly against MNN in a way that does not impact the companies.
> 
> The case is likely to get extra attention as it moves forward given Republican lawmakers' increasing attacks against social media companies for perceived partisanship. Those attacks have raised the specter that the court, which has served as a bulwark for conservative expression, could step in.
> 
> Some observers have expressed caution, saying that the justices are unlikely to rule in a way that could substantially impact social media companies.
> 
> Michael Pachter, a former tax attorney who covers Twitter as an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said he thought it was "extremely unlikely" that the court will issue a ruling that hamstrings social media companies, particularly given the court's deference to business interests.
> 
> If the court does place serious limits on how the companies can restrict the speech on their platforms, he said, it would make the networks more hostile, alienating their users and advertisers.
> 
> "[Twitter] is an uncivil place as it is," Pachter said. "But it will become less civil."
> 
> Courts in California and New Jersey have weighed in on the issue, finding that social media companies don't constitute state actors subject to First Amendment liability. A federal judge in New York ruled in May that the First Amendment protected users interacting with parts of Twitter, including the president's feed. But that ruling did not apply to Twitter as a whole.
> 
> The Supreme Court addressed a related issue in June 2017. In Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194, the court struck down a state law that prohibited sex offenders from accessing social media sites. In his opinion for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired over the summer, referred to social media sites as a "modern public square." But the court's decision left important questions about what exactly that meant up in the air.
> Conservatives allege censorship
> 
> While the justices tend to describe themselves as being apolitical, the court of Chief Justice John Roberts has shown a distinct preference for speech cases that concern conservative ideology, according to an empirical analysis conducted by researchers affiliated with Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Michigan.
> 
> The analysis found that the justices on the court appointed by Republican presidents sided with conservative speech nearly 70 percent of the time.
> 
> "More than any other modern Court, the Roberts Court has trained its sights on speech promoting conservative values," the authors found.
> 
> Polls show that both Democrats and Republicans believe that social media companies censor their users, however, the issue swings heavily conservative. Eighty-five percent of Republicans believe that social media companies censor speech the companies find objectionable, compared with 62 percent of Democrats, according to a June survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.
> 
> The survey also found that 4 in 10 Americans believe that the companies favor liberal speech, versus just 1 in 10 who believes the companies favor conservative speech.
> 
> In August, President Donald Trump blasted Google for allegedly suppressing conservative speech. In a post on Twitter, Trump wrote that "they are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!"
> 
> Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the conservative chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in July accused Twitter of censorship and threatened legal action against the company.
> 
> Perhaps most dramatically, Facebook, YouTube, Apple and the music platform Spotify removed content from right-wing conspiracy theorist and provocateur Alex Jones in August, accusing the talk show host of violating their terms of service. Indeed, MNN cited Jones's removal in a legal brief, saying it was an example of the heightened attention to the issue of First Amendment rights online.
> 
> The major social media companies, which either did not respond or declined to comment to CNBC, have said they do not censor speech based on political ideology.
> 
> In August, as the uproar from conservatives reached a fever pitch, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey called into the radio show hosted by conservative commentator Sean Hannity.
> 
> "We do not shadow ban according to political ideology or viewpoint or content. Period," Dorsey said at the time.
> 
> For its part, Google released a statement saying that its search feature "is not used to set a political agenda and we don't bias our results toward any political ideology."
> 
> During an April hearing before the Senate's Commerce and Judiciary Committees, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was grilled by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, about whether Facebook considered itself a "neutral public forum."
> 
> "There are a great many Americans who I think are deeply concerned that that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship," Cruz said.
> 
> In response, Zuckerberg said that Facebook is a "platform for all ideas."


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

"For its part, Google released a statement saying that its search feature "is not used to set a political agenda and we don't bias our results toward any political ideology."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/16/google-news-results-left-leaning/1651278002/

Not intentionally but it's there.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course, more cheating by GOP in GA for voter suppression, only way GOP can win is by cheating and they usually get away with it.


You're right, they should adopt the Democrat model of allowing illegals to stay in the country, give birth to kids in the USA so they can vote Democrat and continue to break immigration laws to get away with it. It's an ingenious plan , I mean how many votes would the Democrats lose if they didn't support illegal immigration?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> "For its part, Google released a statement saying that its search feature "is not used to set a political agenda and we don't bias our results toward any political ideology."
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/16/google-news-results-left-leaning/1651278002/
> 
> Not intentionally but it's there.


They've been pushing MSM channels on YouTube now and also favor search results from MSM. 

Even if it's algorithm based, the results are always the same 5-10 corporate MSM sites. 

They can lie all they like, but the proof is in the pudding.

Just for example:










Look at what I searched for, and look at the first results on YouTube.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> You're right, they should adopt the Democrat model of allowing illegals to stay in the country, give birth to kids in the USA so they can vote Democrat and continue to break immigration laws to get away with it. It's an ingenious plan , I mean how many votes would the Democrats lose if they didn't support illegal immigration?



Why don't you speak to what I actually wrote instead of whataboutisms? Are you going to defend what the GOP are doing?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Yea I don't really give a fuck when it comes to cheating during election cycles or campaigning anymore. Both sides lie, both sides cheat, both sides know the game and participate willingly. 

They're both fucking heels. You're gonna get mad at one because they found a way to out-cheat the other cheater? Come on.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> The Left has called Ben Shapiro a Nazi. He's jewish. I wouldn't take anyone who calls someone a Nazi seriously.


If you don't want to take people who call someone a Nazi, then don't. 

But if you think that all of the left and not just a fringe minority uses the Nazi rhetoric, then you're also mistaken.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Yea I don't really give a fuck when it comes to cheating during election cycles or campaigning anymore. Both sides lie, both sides cheat, both sides know the game and participate willingly.
> 
> They're both fucking heels. You're gonna get mad at one because they found a way to out-cheat the other cheater? Come on.


So you don't care about cheating or voter suppression? So guess you don't care about democracy then. Good to know.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you don't care about cheating or voter suppression? So guess you don't care about democracy then. Good to know.


Your precious party lies and cheats all the time. They buy media outlets and have them spread their false propaganda. They connive, scheme and try to effect the outcome of elections just like republicans.

You're just a mark that got worked into believing the democrats are the babyfaces.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Your precious party lies and cheats all the time. They buy media outlets and have them spread their false propaganda. They connive, scheme and try to effect the outcome of elections just like republicans.
> 
> You're just a mark that got worked into believing the democrats are the babyfaces.


And when the DNC cheated in the primaries like fucking over Bernie Sanders or when they gave Hillary the questions to the debate questions I called them out on it.

but sure keep accepting it and not calling it out. But in doing so you shouldn't even be in this threads complaining about anything these politicians do or even in real life complain about the govt.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why don't you speak to what I actually wrote instead of whataboutisms? Are you going to defend what the GOP are doing?


I only did what you do all the time. I neither condoned or condemned what the GOP may have done, however the difference is that you happily agree anytime the Democrats actively cheat and break the countries laws as long as it gets them more votes. There's a reason why you glossed over what I said :lol

It's only okay until someone else does it


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> Undertaker23RKO said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Left has called Ben Shapiro a Nazi. He's jewish. I wouldn't take anyone who calls someone a Nazi seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to take people who call someone a Nazi, then don't.
> 
> But if you think that all of the left and not just a fringe minority uses the Nazi rhetoric, then you're also mistaken.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure we've had the right leaning posters arguing against generalisations in the race threads, seems like it don't matter when it comes to them damn leftists. 

I doubt you'll find 0.02% of the left saying Shapiro is a Nazi.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Pretty sure we've had the right leaning posters arguing against generalisations in the race threads, seems like it don't matter when it comes to them damn leftists.
> 
> I doubt you'll find 0.02% of the left saying Shapiro is a Nazi.


Debatable, the MSM tries to label him as such or as enabling white supremacy.. a hardcore Jew.. :laugh:

It's only because he is Jewish and they don't want to be called anti-semitics so they use the Nazi label which just dilutes the word.

Like seriously these words are so overused they have little to no meaning.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Pretty sure we've had the right leaning posters arguing against generalisations in the race threads, seems like it don't matter when it comes to them damn leftists.
> 
> I doubt you'll find 0.02% of the left saying Shapiro is a Nazi.


All generalizations are allowed as long my side gets to be the one to make them!


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *And when the DNC cheated in the primaries like fucking over Bernie Sanders or when they gave Hillary the questions to the debate questions I called them out on it.*
> 
> but sure keep accepting it and not calling it out. But in doing so you shouldn't even be in this threads complaining about anything these politicians do or even in real life complain about the govt.


So then if both sides are cheating and trying to rig the election in their favor then why are your panties in a bunch and why do you carry on like the republican party is the only heel of the two.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050394308568854528
The media and the Democratic Party are one and the same and they are unambiguously the enemy of the people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> I only did what you do all the time. I neither condoned or condemned what the GOP may have done, however the difference is that you happily agree anytime the Democrats actively cheat and break the countries laws as long as it gets them more votes. There's a reason why you glossed over what I said :lol
> 
> It's only okay until someone else does it


Why do you lie? I called out the DNC at all their cheating in the primaries. You can't even best honest, you have zero credibility when you say things like this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> So then if both sides are cheating and trying to rig the election in their favor then why are your panties in a bunch and why do you carry on like the republican party is the only heel of the two.


The DNC did not cheat by voter suppression like the GOP are doing. They cheated in other ways like with the superdelegates, giving her questions, putting the debates on when no one would watch them etc etc

The DNC does not actively suppress voters. But keep defending the voter suppression.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> If you don't want to take people who call someone a Nazi, then don't.
> 
> But if you think that all of the left and not just a fringe minority uses the Nazi rhetoric, then you're also mistaken.


By "The Left" I meant some people on the left, not the whole left. I probably should have specified.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050394308568854528
> The media and the Democratic Party are one and the same and they are unambiguously the enemy of the people.


Oh the irony






Political parties right now suck, so lets call them all out.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Oh the irony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political parties right now suck, so lets call them all out.


A bunch of local news affiliates repeating the same talking points isn't a comparable or sufficient response to what I posted. The mainstream media, the big networks, are colluding in outright denying the reality of the violent, uncivilized strategy the Democrats are inciting and encouraging among their activists.

Both parties do suck, but only the Democrats are trying to violently overthrow the government (in order to install themselves in power) and intimidate the other side into submission, with the help of their media allies. This is fact. Your whataboutism and false equivalencies won't work here. You are wrong and supporting evil. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it's unwittingly.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> A bunch of local news affiliates repeating the same talking points isn't a comparable or sufficient response to what I posted.


It is though


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Oh the irony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political parties right now suck, so lets call them all out.



I remember talking about this earlier in the year, it was Sinclair Broadcasting who made their local affiliates read out this same message which went across multiple different channels.

It was very scary and Orwellian to witness, even now. The state of the mainstream media is dreadful.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

protestors are not mobs but of course, people on the right would love to claim that. And correcting them when they try to claim that is not the same thing as what DOPA posted.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The DNC did not cheat by voter suppression like the GOP are doing. They cheated in other ways like with the superdelegates, giving her questions, putting the debates on when no one would watch them etc etc
> 
> *The DNC does not actively suppress voters. But keep defending the voter suppression.*


Que?



> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony...ession-can-stop-bernie-sanders_b_9780128.html
> 
> The biggest issue, and something the corporate media barely touches, is that Hillary’s two wins over the past month  —  New York and Arizona  —  came in the two state primaries that were most fraught with problems and that are now under legal investigation.
> 
> A similarity between the two states is disturbing. In both states, massive voter roll changes and purges took place in the days and weeks leading up to the primary, disqualifying thousands upon thousands of new Democratic voters


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Worm bullies 9/11 widow, gets chased off by her son.  A feel-good story for all decent people.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053045107191095297


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Worm bullies 9/11 widow, gets chased off by her son.  A feel-good story for all decent people.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053045107191095297


What a dork. I hate people who say OTT stuff like that.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I disavow Trump for not picking Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court at the earliest opportunity. Not due to her views but simply because this family photo of the Barrett family (they have seven kids, two adopted from Haiti) exists and is the most MURICA thing ever:










Family goals. roud There's even a football and DO I SEE A DOGGO in the background. 

Oh well, there's always next time.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I disavow Trump for not picking Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court at the earliest opportunity. Not due to her views but simply because this family photo of the Barrett family (they have seven kids, two adopted from Haiti) exists and is the most MURICA thing ever:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Family goals. roud There's even a football and DO I SEE A DOGGO in the background.
> 
> Oh well, there's always next time.


Definitely the cuntiest family photo I've seen for a loooong time.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Yeah, the left hates families, we know.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Definitely the cuntiest family photo I've seen for a loooong time.


They look inbred tbh.

http://londoniscool.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/inbred-********.jpg


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Oh the irony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political parties right now suck, so lets call them all out.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It's kind of sad that the President of the United States is so ignorant of his own country's laws that he has managed to convince his followers that "migrant" caravans (already lying when using the word) heading to the US can be stopped by anyone along the way because they are protected both by international laws and treaties as well as his own. Or maybe he's not ignorant of the laws. He's been told that if the caravans reach the US, the asylum seeker's have to be heard. At the same time, international laws protect asylum seekers and allow them to reach safe zones where their concerns can be heard and given due process. This is progress that was made decades ago. 

First of all, these are not "migrant" caravans. The moron that is the US president is not aware that these are asylum seekers. According to basic human rights and even global legal standars (i.e. if Trump even knows about this) it is actually illegal to refuse asylum to anyone without due process. 

Secondly, there is already a system in place at the US border that has been around for decades setup specifically to deal with asylum seekers and listen to their greviances. 

Lastly, the vast majority of asylum seekers are vetted and some are given asylum in the States, while others are refused. 75% of all asylum seekers are denied. But don't let facts get in the way of feelings. 

Of course, Trump given the fool that he is basically makes morons of his own followers because while he acts as a "reporter", his followers are the ones who think that it's some sort of massive "invasion" of da west. 

Again, as I've said time and time again, paranoia is a favorite past time of many Americans - especially when it comes to otherism.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, the left hates families, we know.


The right loves them, ICE do too.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> It's kind of sad that the President of the United States is so ignorant of his own country's laws that he has managed to convince his followers that "migrant" caravans (already lying when using the word) heading to the US can be stopped by anyone along the way because they are protected both by international laws and treaties as well as his own. Or maybe he's not ignorant of the laws. He's been told that if the caravans reach the US, the asylum seeker's have to be heard. At the same time, international laws protect asylum seekers and allow them to reach safe zones where their concerns can be heard and given due process. This is progress that was made decades ago.
> 
> First of all, these are not "migrant" caravans. The moron that is the US president is not aware that these are asylum seekers. According to basic human rights and even global legal standars (i.e. if Trump even knows about this) it is actually illegal to refuse asylum to anyone without due process.
> 
> Secondly, there is already a system in place at the US border that has been around for decades setup specifically to deal with asylum seekers and listen to their greviances.
> 
> Lastly, the vast majority of asylum seekers are vetted and some are given asylum in the States, while others are refused. 75% of all asylum seekers are denied. But don't let facts get in the way of feelings.
> 
> Of course, Trump given the fool that he is basically makes morons of his own followers because while he acts as a "reporter", his followers are the ones who think that it's some sort of massive "invasion" of da west.
> 
> Again, as I've said time and time again, paranoia is a favorite past time of many Americans - especially when it comes to otherism.


They're supposed to stop in the first safe place which would be Mexico and don't think there is any conflict going on that's considered an actual war to justify migrating. 

Most likely Mexico will stop them as Mexico has strict border laws, well for anyone but their own citizens.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> They're supposed to stop in the first safe place which would be Mexico and don't think there is any conflict going on that's considered an actual war to justify migrating.
> 
> Most likely Mexico will stop them as Mexico has strict border laws, well for anyone but their own citizens.


If they're seeking asylum in the States then Mexico can't stop them. 

I've always stated that inward migration from Mexico into US is a problem. 

But not these caravans. They are not seeking to get into the country illegally. That's simply not their objective. These caravans are following a process and part of the system, within it, not that illegal trucks that no one knows about. They're trying to go through the existing legal process. 75% are turned away. 

But why let go of a chance to stoke irrational fears and paranoia?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> If they're seeking asylum in the States then Mexico can't stop them.
> 
> I've always stated that inward migration from Mexico into US is a problem.
> 
> But not these caravans. They are not seeking to get into the country illegally. That's simply not their objective. These caravans are following a process and part of the system, within it, not that illegal trucks that no one knows about. They're trying to go through the existing legal process. 75% are turned away.
> 
> But why let go of a chance to stoke irrational fears and paranoia?


Yeah that loophole needs to change. It seems Mexico has asked the UN for help in setting up camps on their border. US needs to fix this asap before it causes major issues. The ones coming illegally are the bigger issue and Mexico is not helping in that regard.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> JEFFERSON CITY
> U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill’s campaign is demanding Attorney General Josh Hawley open a fraud investigation into hidden-camera videos released this week by a nonprofit run by conservative activist James O’Keefe.
> The videos show O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action Fund going undercover to secretly interview members of McCaskill’s campaign. The group, a 501c4 nonprofit, advertised the videos as proof that McCaskill, a Democrat, has been hiding her views on guns and abortion from Missouri voters.
> McCaskill and Hawley, a Republican, are in a tight election race that could help determine which party controls the U.S. Senate.
> David Kirby, McCaskill’s campaign manager, said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday that there is reason to believe Project Veritas committed fraud that violated the state’s merchandising practices act.
> That law prohibits deceptive business practices and is enforced by the attorney general’s office.
> Kirby said the videos were captured under false pretenses and misrepresentations, “which under Missouri law is fraud.”
> Kirby said Hawley must recuse himself and appoint a special prosecutor to look into the videos, which he called “gutter politics.”
> He went on to criticize the fact that Hawley and his campaign have been publicizing the videos and encouraging voters to watch them on social media and in fund-raising emails.
> “This is not about Project Veritas,” Kirby said. “This is about the attorney general’s failure to stand up and call out fraudulent activity.”
> Kirby also said the campaign is contemplating other legal actions aside from any potential fraud investigation by the attorney general’s office.
> A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
> Hawley responded on his campaign’s Twitter account.
> “Senator, accusing people of crimes is a serious thing,” Hawley tweeted. “If you have evidence of a crime, please come forward with it immediately. Otherwise, please stop politicizing the legal process for your reelection.”
> Marco Bruno, a spokesman for Project Veritas Action Fund, said “we will fully cooperate with any investigation (that) may be initiated.”
> O’Keefe’s organization is known for its “sting” operations against Democrats and media organizations. He has been criticized for selectively editing videos to misrepresent the context of conversations and the subjects’ responses.
> In 2010, as a result of a failed undercover action targeting then-Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, O’Keefe pleaded guilty to entering federal property under false pretenses. He received three years probation, a fine of $1,500 and 100 hours of community service.
> In one video, a McCaskill staffer says that the senator downplays her support for gun control. Another staffer suggests she is downplaying her support from former President Barack Obama. In another video, McCaskill is accused of trying to hide her support from Planned Parenthood.
> McCaskill’s campaign has dismissed the videos, saying the senator has never tried to hide her positions on the issues from voters and the video contained nothing she hasn’t said publicly before.
> Initially, the McCaskill also insinuated in a prepared statement that Hawley had a direct hand in “fraudulently embedding somebody in my campaign.” She later sent out an amended statement walking that back slightly, saying only that Hawley had embraced someone being fraudulently embedded in her campaign.
> On Wednesday, Kirby noted that an outspoken Hawley supporter -- veteran GOP consultant Gregg Keller -- appeared to have known the content of the video before it was made public.
> Keller released a statement saying he was “shocked and amazed that McCaskill and her staff have decided to make James O’Keefe’s guerrilla video, which was incredibly embarrassing to her and her staff, a continuing campaign issue. “
> He said he had nothing to do with the production or dissemination of the video, “although I wish I had. Additionally, I’m very pleased that in the closing weeks of the Missouri Senate race, McCaskill’s campaign is focused on me and my supposed machinations.”


http://archive.is/FGffa#selection-2297.1-2511.258


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I've seen so many of the right take the 'go low, kick them' to the extreme and actively suggest he's promoting violence.






Donald Trump specifically APPLAUDS violence.






Silence from the right.

The state of politics.

:bunk


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Headliner

Draykorinee said:


> I've seen so many of the right take the 'go low, kick them' to the extreme and actively suggest he's promoting violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump specifically APPLAUDS violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silence from the right.
> 
> The state of politics.
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/sTCQfPo.gif" border="0" alt="" title="bunk" class="inlineimg" />


Which is why that when we they go low, we go high Michelle Obama crap is bullshit and ineffective. Trump Republicans operate in moral relativism and condemn everyone else who fail to live up to moral standards except themselves.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I don't think you'll find anyone here who would defend Trump advocating violence.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> I don't think you'll find anyone here who would defend Trump advocating violence.


No and the fact that both Trump and his Democrat foes are doing this is disturbing.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/412195-georgia-purged-more-than-100000-people-from-voter-rolls-because-there-didnt



> *107,000 purged from Georgia voter rolls for not voting in past elections: report*
> 
> Georgia officials removed an estimated 107,000 people from voter rolls because they decided not to vote in prior elections, according to a new report.
> 
> An APM Reports analysis found the voters were removed under the state's "use it or lose it" law, which starts a process for removing people from voter rolls if they fail to vote, respond to a notice or make contact with election officials over a three-year period.
> 
> After that three-year span, those who don't vote or make contact with authorities in two elections can be purged from the voter rolls under the Georgia law.
> 
> Such laws, generally enacted by GOP governments, have been growing more common, with at least nine states now having them, according to APM Reports.
> 
> Voter suppression has become a big issue in the Georgia governor's race, where Republican Brian Kemp is running against Democrat Stacy Abrams. Abrams would become the first black woman to serve as a U.S. governor in history if elected.
> 
> Kemp is Georgia's secretary of state, and his office oversees elections. Abrams has argued that Georgia laws and Kemp's office have acted to suppress the votes of African-Americans in the state. Kemp says his office is following Georgia law and that he has acted to prevent voter fraud.
> 
> The two are locked in a tight race that could be decided by a relatively small number of voters.
> 
> The APM investigation concluded that many people struck from voter rolls under "use it or lose it" laws do not know that they have been dropped and are likely to be surprised if they are turned away from the polls on Nov. 6.
> 
> Officials who support the laws argue that the policy helps prevent voter fraud, saying that citizens in good standing who have not turned out to multiple elections most likely moved.


3 years? You miss one election, even a midterm, and you're out?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The Texas Democratic Party reportedly asked non-citizens to register to vote and sent applications to immigrants that pre-checked the citizenship box as "yes," according to complaints filed on Thursday.

"The Public Interest Legal Foundation [PILF] alerted district attorneys and the federal Justice Department to the pre-checked applications, and also included a signed affidavit from a man who said some of his relatives, who aren’t citizens, received the mailing," The Washington Times reported. "The Texas secretary of state’s office said it, too, had gotten complaints both from immigrants and from relatives of dead people who said they got mailings asking them to register."

"This is how the Texas Democratic Party is inviting foreign influence in an election in a federal election cycle,” said PILF spokesman Logan Churchwell.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott responded to the report by saying that there will be "serious consequences" if the allegations are true.

"A complaint says the Texas Democratic Party asked noncitizens to register to vote, sending applications with citizenship box pre-checked," Abbott said in a tweet. "This is being investigated. If true there will be serious consequences."

A complaint says the Texas Democratic Party asked noncitizens to register to vote, sending applications with citizenship box pre-checked. This is being investigated. If true there will be serious consequences. #txlege #tcot #PJNET https://t.co/dgSPT8f77G

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 18, 2018
The applications were reportedly pre-addressed to election officials and included a return address that said the application was from the State Democratic Executive Committee. The return address matched the state's Democratic Party headquarters in Austin. The Times adds:

The letter is emblazoned with “Urgent! Your voter registration deadline is October 9.” It continues: “Your voter registration application is inside. Complete, sign and return it today!”

On the application, boxes affirming the applicant is both 18 and a U.S. citizen are already checked with an “X” in the Yes field.

The mailing also urges those who are unsure if they’re registered to “Mail it in.”

PILF sent complaints to two counties in Texas with copies of pre-marked voter applications and asked for officials to conduct an investigation.

The report comes as the November 2018 midterms are less than three months away and as election integrity has been in the spotlight in recent months.

A report from the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) in August found "170 registered voters listed as being over 116 years old [that] still existed on the [voter] rolls" in Ohio’s 12th Congressional District.

A separate report from August found that there were "twice as many ballots as the number of registered voters were cast in a northeastern Georgia precinct during the state's primary elections in May."

A report from political experts at Old Dominion University in January 2017 "estimated of the believed 20 million non-citizen adults living in the U.S., approximately 6.4% illegally voted in 2016, which equates to more than 1.2 million illegally cast votes."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37334/texas-democrats-ask-non-citizens-register-vote-ryan-saavedra


----------



## Draykorinee

Undertaker23RKO said:


> The Texas Democratic Party reportedly asked non-citizens to register to vote and sent applications to immigrants that pre-checked the citizenship box as "yes," according to complaints filed on Thursday.
> 
> "The Public Interest Legal Foundation [PILF] alerted district attorneys and the federal Justice Department to the pre-checked applications, and also included a signed affidavit from a man who said some of his relatives, who aren’t citizens, received the mailing," The Washington Times reported. "The Texas secretary of state’s office said it, too, had gotten complaints both from immigrants and from relatives of dead people who said they got mailings asking them to register."
> 
> "This is how the Texas Democratic Party is inviting foreign influence in an election in a federal election cycle,” said PILF spokesman Logan Churchwell.
> 
> Texas Governor Greg Abbott responded to the report by saying that there will be "serious consequences" if the allegations are true.
> 
> "A complaint says the Texas Democratic Party asked noncitizens to register to vote, sending applications with citizenship box pre-checked," Abbott said in a tweet. "This is being investigated. If true there will be serious consequences."
> 
> A complaint says the Texas Democratic Party asked noncitizens to register to vote, sending applications with citizenship box pre-checked. This is being investigated. If true there will be serious consequences. #txlege #tcot #PJNET https://t.co/dgSPT8f77G
> 
> — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 18, 2018
> The applications were reportedly pre-addressed to election officials and included a return address that said the application was from the State Democratic Executive Committee. The return address matched the state's Democratic Party headquarters in Austin. The Times adds:
> 
> The letter is emblazoned with “Urgent! Your voter registration deadline is October 9.” It continues: “Your voter registration application is inside. Complete, sign and return it today!”
> 
> On the application, boxes affirming the applicant is both 18 and a U.S. citizen are already checked with an “X” in the Yes field.
> 
> The mailing also urges those who are unsure if they’re registered to “Mail it in.”
> 
> PILF sent complaints to two counties in Texas with copies of pre-marked voter applications and asked for officials to conduct an investigation.
> 
> The report comes as the November 2018 midterms are less than three months away and as election integrity has been in the spotlight in recent months.
> 
> A report from the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) in August found "170 registered voters listed as being over 116 years old [that] still existed on the [voter] rolls" in Ohio’s 12th Congressional District.
> 
> A separate report from August found that there were "twice as many ballots as the number of registered voters were cast in a northeastern Georgia precinct during the state's primary elections in May."
> 
> A report from political experts at Old Dominion University in January 2017 "estimated of the believed 20 million non-citizen adults living in the U.S., approximately 6.4% illegally voted in 2016, which equates to more than 1.2 million illegally cast votes."
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/37334/texas-democrats-ask-non-citizens-register-vote-ryan-saavedra


This has been posted already. We all agreed the democrats are shit.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> This has been posted already. We all agreed the democrats are shit.


Looks like I'm behind on my news (per usual)


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Y'all really comparing Trump making a joke about that reporter being body slammed to the left daily telling their people to be violent and confrontational and actually storming buildings as a mob? :lmao You sure do love to jump on the false equivalencies to make it seem like the level of uncivility and violence is anywhere close to even.

The Trump joke was inappropes as was the body slam (though the editing of that tape makes it unclear what actually transpired immediately prior to the body slam, though I doubt it was warranted regardless) but no, nowhere close to what the left is doing.

And trying to somehow tie Trump's rhetoric about the media to the body slam or even the killing in Turkey is loony tunes.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Y'all really comparing Trump making a joke about that reporter being body slammed to the left daily telling their people to be violent and confrontational and actually storming buildings as a mob?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure do love to jump on the false equivalencies to make it seem like the level of uncivility and violence is anywhere close to even.
> 
> The Trump joke was inappropes as was the body slam (though the editing of that tape makes it unclear what actually transpired immediately prior to the body slam, though I doubt it was warranted regardless) but no, nowhere close to what the left is doing.
> 
> And trying to somehow tie Trump's rhetoric about the media to the body slam or even the killing in Turkey is loony tunes.


Do you even read? I equated it to the right bashing the guy who said if they go low we kick them. Not one person equated it to the mob shit you are posting.

Learn to read before you get all worked up.

The utter state of you.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/412195-georgia-purged-more-than-100000-people-from-voter-rolls-because-there-didnt
> 
> 
> 
> 3 years? You miss one election, even a midterm, and you're out?


Bout as shady as the Democrats asking for non-citizens to vote. Elections need to start being watched more. The fuckery is unreal.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Cp trolling is painful to read.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Bout as shady as the Democrats asking for non-citizens to vote. Elections need to start being watched more. The fuckery is unreal.


They don't ask illegals to vote stop with this nonsense. its been debunked over and over again.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

God damnit. Where is my ballot? I'm an immigrant with a green card. They don't even know I exist. 

Also, I've been canvased by several Democrats and Republicans and whenever I tell them "hey, I'm an immigrant", no one wants to sneak me into some back alley or a bus and take me to the polls.

I feel left out :'(

Srsly though, does it happen? Well one lady who works at the polls did confirm that dead people have been known to vote. She didn't tell me which party it was for though and I didn't ask. It didn't seem appropriate.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Btw, the YouTube takeover by MSM corporate puppets media is complete.

No matter how I search now all I get are the exact same results.

Look at all the different ways I searched. In most cases, the results have nothing to do with what I searched for.



Spoiler: images














































Many people I subscribe to had something to say about this but they have been buried.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

This last one is especially horrible.

... 

Google search is no longer functional and nothing more than the propaganda arm of the mainstream media. 

It took them 2 years to do this, but they did. They buried every content creator that was actually and actively criticising politics and politicians


----------



## Draykorinee

Someone's clearly got a thing for older women.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053318590147883009
Get 'em, Tulsi.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Democrats asking for illegal votes , how am I not surprised :lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Democrats asking for illegal votes , how am I not surprised :lol


And wouldn't they? It means they don't need to actually have a platform or any ideas.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...van-were-coming-whether-trump-wants-us-or-not


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053370343153455114
They don't care about our national sovereignty or our laws. They want to take advantage of our empathy. Enough is enough. Trump needs to stop threatening to use our military to defend our borders and just do it already.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1052998259935981569
Jesus Christ. How reckless the left has been in downplaying Trump's completely accurate criticisms of immigration from the South. They'll let our country be threatened just to attain and hold political power.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Saw this on local news.

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/black-voters-ordered-off-bus-georgia-county-defends-action-1



> *Black voters ordered off bus; Georgia county defends action
> photo*
> 
> LOUISVILLE, Ga. (AP) - A group that encourages African-Americans to vote says about 40 black residents of a senior living center in Georgia were told to get off a bus taking them to vote.
> 
> Officials with Jefferson County, which operates the senior center, say the county considered Monday's event "political activity," which isn't allowed during county-sponsored events.
> 
> The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports Monday was the first day of in-person early voting in Georgia. Democrat Stacey Abrams and Republican Brian Kemp are running for governor.
> 
> LaTosha Brown, a co-founder of Black Voters Matter, says the center director asked the senior residents to get off the bus. She said the ordeal was "an intimidation tactic."
> 
> County Administrator Adam Brett said officials felt uncomfortable allowing senior center patrons to leave in a bus with "an unknown third party."


*EDIT:* Mayor of the town on FB.


----------



## Ryder92

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Do you even read? I equated it to the right bashing the guy who said if they go low we kick them. Not one person equated it to the mob shit you are posting.
> 
> Learn to read before you get all worked up.
> 
> The utter state of you.


Yeah, I don't think Holder was as serious as Hillary was. Republicans have whined about Holder's comments too much.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053751957267988480
BELIEVE SURVIVORS


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053751957267988480
> BELIEVE SURVIVORS


Can't we just mock them?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Sam Seder just destroyed Charlie Kirk. It was funny seeing Kirk get beaten two days in a row. Even Hassan Piker beat him. Kirk is awful.

Kyle also did great today too. Up next is Cenk vs Tucker, this will be WWE style im sure.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> And wouldn't they? It means they don't need to actually have a platform or any ideas.


Well getting illegal votes isn't a bad idea exactly


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> And wouldn't they? It means they don't need to actually have a platform or any ideas.


yet Democrats do have a platform, but of course you just need to make shit up


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So when is the Booker investigation coming? And the calls for impeachment?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Just saw some of those Politicon debates.

Very disappointed with Charlie Kirk's showing. Was emotional the entire time and could not keep his hatred towards TYT in check. 

Amazing that he shared the stage with someone like Piker and still came off as the triggered snowflake.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Just saw some of those Politicon debates.
> 
> Very disappointed with Charlie Kirk's showing. Was emotional the entire time and could not keep his hatred towards TYT in check.
> 
> Amazing that he shared the stage with someone like Piker and still came off as the triggered snowflake.


Piker and Seder both destroyed Kirk Kirk is a clown and was exposed big time.

its sad when Piker who isnt a great debater easily handled Kirk.

I will say, Cenk vs Tucker was pretty chilled. And Tucker is pretty reasonable when he is not playing his gimmick character he plays on Fox News.


----------



## Draykorinee

I've only seen a few. 

Michael Knowles was probably the most odious little cunt I've seen in a debate.

Was surprised with Scottie Hughes, seemed entirely reasonable and open for debate.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Just saw some of those Politicon debates.
> 
> Very disappointed with Charlie Kirk's showing. Was emotional the entire time and could not keep his hatred towards TYT in check.
> 
> Amazing that he shared the stage with someone like Piker and still came off as the triggered snowflake.


I know this isn't your quote, but let's call this what it is:

Knowles is a twat. He is smug, and arrogant, and completely unlikable. But he is also honest about his points, and doesn't care who he offends, so there is that.

I am halfway through the debate with piker and Kirk, and I have to say, I saw Kirk's meltdown with Cenk, but outside of that, he just comes off as a guy who is more annoyed.

Him and Candace go through the same playbook, they tend to use facts and talking points, and then resort to losing their temper instead of staying on point. 

This debate is eerily similar to last year where Charlie makes a point, Piker (who has no idea what he is talking about and who's uncle obviously was trying to save him from being a bigger ass than he already looked) strays from that point in order to get underneath Kirk's skin, and it works.

Charlie tries to be mini Ben, but what makes Shapiro so good is that he always seems in control of his argument, and he lets you defeat yourself.

Kirk is young though, so that might be an issue. Either way, I have shared my opinion on Charlie Kirk before, this debate didn't sway me one way or the other, I hope Seder impresses me when i see that one.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Just saw some of those Politicon debates.
> 
> Very disappointed with Charlie Kirk's showing. Was emotional the entire time and could not keep his hatred towards TYT in check.
> 
> Amazing that he shared the stage with someone like Piker and still came off as the triggered snowflake.


Because he is a snowflake. He is still young though, so he can learn from this like how Tucker Carlson reformed his image over time. But you also have to admit Kirk is obviously embarrassed about being under the payroll of rich conservative donors and he got triggered for being exposed in front of his peers. (most of whom probably are in the same boat of being under the thumbs of rich donors, both left and right :lol)


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Kirk is basically the preacher's son who hands you tickets to that rad Christian metal group that's performing in his daddy's church and you should totally come! (not literally). He's the new face that's elevated by older conservatives in order to hook the younger crowd to their politics. 

Essentially, this kind of reformism happened a while ago within various churches that decided that things like christian hard rock, metal .. hech even rap etc were the best way to keep their young within their own echo chambers instead of looking for outlets that might lead them to satan worship and witchcraft. 

Modern conservatives are following the same trend. They're marketing themselves to the younger generation by promoting younger thought leaders. The agnostic (in appearance only) but pseudoreligious, traditionalist message that basically extends the church into college seminar halls.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Because he is a snowflake. He is still young though, so he can learn from this like how Tucker Carlson reformed his image over time. But you also have to admit Kirk is obviously embarrassed about being under the payroll of rich conservative donors and he got triggered for being exposed in front of his peers. (most of whom probably are in the same boat of being under the thumbs of rich donors, both left and right :lol)


I don't think Kirk is a snowflake, He has a temper, but i don't think he is a snowflake

I look at kirk as a guy who is trying too much to be like Ben Shapiro, and not enough like Charlie Kirk.

He is obviously a bright guy, but when he throws fits (and trust me this wasn't the first one) it turns a lot of people off to him.

he takes Shapiro's "I am smarter than everyone in the room, and will let you know it" shtick, but can't formulate his arguments because he can't even say on track.

There was an early point in the debate, where he had Piker dead to rights, and says "Well, you would classify Norway, Sweden, and a third country I dont remember as socialist right?

Piker (because he gets baited, and does that thing where he is contrarian just to be contrarian) say "No" because he knows Charlie is about to spout off facts, then says something off the cuff, and Kirk f'n falls for it.

He doesn't have a good flow for debates yet, because he knows too much, an doesn't get his points out first.

The thing with Cenk was for fluff, IMO, it was obvious that was somewhat staged, as Kirk seemed to calm down a little too quickly for someone "steaming mad"


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Opinion is this will hurt her in the gubernatorial race.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/politics/abrams-flag-burning-georgia.html



> *Stacey Abrams’s Burning of Georgia Flag With Confederate Symbol Surfaces on Eve of Debate*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATLANTA — At a protest on the steps of the Georgia Capitol in 1992, Stacey Abrams, now the Democratic candidate for governor, joined in the burning of the state flag, which at the time incorporated the Confederate battle flag design and was viewed by many as a lingering symbol of white supremacy.
> 
> Ms. Abrams’s role in the protest, which took place around the end of her freshman year at Spelman College in Atlanta, has begun to emerge on social media on the eve of her first debate Tuesday with her Republican opponent, Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Mr. Kemp and his allies have sought to portray her as “too extreme for Georgia.”
> 
> If elected, Ms. Abrams, 44, would become the first black female governor in the nation. In August 2017, after the violent white supremacist demonstrations in Charlottesville, Va., Ms. Abrams injected the issue of Confederate memorials into the governor’s race by calling for the removal of the giant Confederate carving on Stone Mountain, a granite outcropping east of Atlanta, noting, correctly, its ties to white supremacy and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan.
> 
> Mr. Kemp, who is white, has said that Georgians should not “attempt to rewrite” the past, and said he would protect the monument from “the radical left.”
> 
> Ms. Abrams’s campaign, in a statement Monday, said her actions in 1992 were part of a “permitted, peaceful protest against the Confederate emblem in the flag” and part of a movement that was ultimately successful in changing the flag.
> 
> “During Stacey Abrams’ college years, Georgia was at a crossroads, struggling with how to overcome racially divisive issues, including symbols of the Confederacy, the sharpest of which was the inclusion of the Confederate emblem in the Georgia state flag,” the statement read. “This conversation was sweeping across Georgia as numerous organizations, prominent leaders, and students engaged in the ultimately successful effort to change the flag.”
> 
> It added: “Abrams’ time in public service as deputy city attorney and as a state legislative leader have all been focused on bringing people together to solve problems.”
> Image
> A photo that appeared with an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June 1992 showed Ms. Abrams, center, her first name misspelled, standing with students burning the Georgia state flag at the state Capitol.
> 
> A spokesman for the Kemp campaign, Ryan Mahoney, could not be reached for comment on Monday.
> 
> In the 1990s, few issues in Georgia were more politically explosive than the Confederate-themed design of the flag. After much debate and protest, the design was changed in 2001 in such a way that the battle flag’s size was minimized. The battle flag was completely removed from the design with a second change in 2003.
> 
> Until the changes, it had been vehemently opposed by African Americans and other Georgians who noted that battle flag design element had been introduced by a state legislature in 1956 that was intent on flaunting its contempt for pressure from the federal government to integrate after the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
> 
> Eventually, however, Atlanta city officials refused to fly the flag over municipal buildings, and many in the Atlanta corporate community considered it to be an embarrassment.
> 
> The change to the flag is believed to have cost Georgia’s last Democratic governor, Roy Barnes, his re-election bid in 2002, as he faced criticism from a vocal group of “flaggers” who argued that the symbol was not about racism, but the valor and sacrifice of the South’s Civil War troops.
> 
> The June 14, 1992, protest, and Ms. Abrams’s role in it, is described in a pair of local newspaper stories at the time. A photo of Ms. Abrams and two other African-American students burning the flag appeared on the front of the local section of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution newspaper the next day.
> 
> In the second article, about two weeks later, Ms. Abrams spoke of the backlash, saying that a woman had called and told her that the flag was a symbol of Southern heritage, and that black people who did not like the flag could “get the hell out.”
> 
> Hey, I’m Alex Burns, a politics correspondent for The Times. I’ll give you the latest reporting and intel on the midterms and take your questions from the campaign trail.
> 
> In the article, Ms. Abrams spoke about how she kept her parents, who had been active in the civil rights struggle in Mississippi, abreast of her own budding activism in Atlanta.
> 
> Ms. Abrams had recently helped lead a peaceful protest over the acquittal of four Los Angeles police officers who had been accused of using excessive force in the beating of a black motorist, Rodney King. But other protesters had turned violent.


For those that don't know, from 1956-2001 this was the state flag of Georgia. It was adopted in direct response to the civil rights movement.










It was adopted by the state legislature specifically in response to the Brown v. Board of Education decision that ended school segregation. It was co-sponsored by Sen. Jefferson Lee Davis, named after the president of the Confederacy and the Confederacy's most famous general.

Speeches made at the time.



> *Governor Marvin Griffin:* "There will be no mixing of the races in the public schools and college classrooms of Georgia anywhere or at any time as long as I am governor. All attempts to mix the races, whether they be in the classrooms, on the playgrounds, in public conveyances or in any other area of close personal contact on terms of equity, peril the mores of the South."
> 
> *Rep. Denmark Groover:* "The new flag would replace those meaningless stripes with something that has deep meaning in the hearts of all true Southerners.” "The move would leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that Georgia will not forget the teachings of Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and that this will show that we in Georgia intend to uphold what we stood for, will stand for, and will fight for. Anything we in Georgia can do to preserve the memory of the Confederacy is a step forward.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

That's pretty fucked that the confederate "logo" was still part of their flag until 1901, let alone 2001.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054790831939436546
Pray to god that Gillum defeat this dude and his team of bigot *******.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





Are voter ID laws racist? The answers given by white liberals are quite amusing to say the least :lol



Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054790831939436546
> Pray to god that Gillum defeat this dude and his team of bigot *******.


And yet, you use the word "******" as an insult.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Are voter ID laws racist? The answers given by white liberals are quite amusing to say the least :lol
> 
> 
> And yet, you use the word "******" as an insult.


Yup. You'll be alright. Run the fuck along.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> Yup. You'll be alright. Run the fuck along.


Grow up and stop acting like a child because you got called out on for being a homophobic bigot.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Grow up and stop acting like a child because you got called out on for being a homophobic bigot.


You'll be alright. Move the fuck along.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Coward terrorists have sent bombs to the Clinton, Obama, and Soros households. I was going to make a joke, but would rather not end up on a list


----------



## Kiz

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

which one of you nutters did it


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055087209391497219

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055092487117783040
I hope the FBI/Secret Service does their jobs and tracks down this person or individuals that may be involved in this assassination attempt.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Suspicious packages, suspicious circumstances.


----------



## Headliner

Wow. Soros, Clinton, Obama. Someone's trying to take out the deep state. :lelfold


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



samizayn said:


> Coward terrorists have sent bombs to the Clinton, Obama, and Soros households. I was going to make a joke, but would rather not end up on a list


also the cnn headquarters.

"ThE lEfT iS a MoB"

and right-wingers are terrorists. how soon until trump endorses domestic terrorism?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> Wow. Soros, Clinton, Obama. Someone's trying to take out the deep state. :lelfold


Clinton and Soros are toxic to whatever movement they're part of, they're human IEDs to politics. Obama, not sure why anyone would mess with him, did someone catch him spying from the bushes? :laugh:


----------



## Headliner

Miss Sally said:


> Clinton and Soros are toxic to whatever movement they're part of, they're human IEDs to politics. Obama, not sure why anyone would mess with him, did someone catch him spying from the bushes? <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/WrestlingForum_2014RED/smilies/tango_face_smile_big.png" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />


You shouldn't be surprised about Obama. Right wing media has painted him as a demon for years and spreaded propaganda. Honestly I'm surprised he didnt face multiple major assissatation attempts while in office. 

Now CNN's NY building had to be evacuated. 

Soros, Clinton, Obama, CNN. All Trump targets. The pattern shows that this could be some Trump conspiracy theorist or fringe supporter. Could be wrong, but the pattern makes sense.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

This is just a really impassionsed "vote in the midterms!" campaign. Right? Err...


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



samizayn said:


> This is just a really impassionsed "vote in the midterms!" campaign. Right? Err...


Civil War!

@Headliner Agreed, will wait to see what happens with this story. Not sure what to make of it, if it's a nutjob or a distraction from something else. Maybe we'll get to know more about this and hope it's not like the Vegas shooting where little has still come out.


----------



## Draykorinee

False flag attacks.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> False flag attacks.


How do you figure?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> How do you figure?


No idea if it is but have to admit the timing is super suspicious. I always question these things now.

Seems White House got a bomb too, seems it's not just the "Left" getting bombs?


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

AP says the White House did not receive a bomb


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Police Investigating Suspicious Package at Sunrise Office of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz


----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> False flag attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure?
Click to expand...

I don't. I'm just very very cynical nowadays.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I don't. I'm just very very cynical nowadays.


How I am, seems like it's all just theater. I'm starting to care less and less.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Yup watching CNN and they are already ramping up the rhetoric and subtly implicating right wingers.

This is a work, no doubt about it. The dems have sunk to a new low. Disgusting.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Suspicious package sent to CNN was addressed to fmr. CIA Director Brennan

so... basically anyone who has dared to criticize trump better be careful handling their mail. right-wing snowflakes will attempt to murder you if they find out about it.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DaRealNugget said:


> Suspicious package sent to CNN was addressed to fmr. CIA Director Brennan


Was he even in the building?


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*San Diego Union-Tribune office, Kamala Harris office evacuated*

San Diego Police are currently investigating a suspicious package and have closed off a section of 6th Avenue where the San Diego Union-Tribune is located, according to Officer Billy Hernandez.

The building that was evacuated houses the San Diego Union-Tribune, Senator Kamala Harris' field office, and other offices this morning.

It is not clear where the packages were to be delivered. One U-T staffer also noted that a bicycle pump looking device was near the boxes. 

Source


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DaRealNugget said:


> Suspicious package sent to CNN was addressed to fmr. CIA Director Brennan
> 
> so... basically anyone who has dared to criticize trump better be careful handling their mail. right-wing snowflakes will attempt to murder you if they find out about it.


That is what happens when Trump cheers on violence against anyone that opposes him.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So none of these bombs blew up? So many bombs and not one explosion? So what's the point?

Even the dipshit that shot up the Republican baseball game managed to fire his weapon and hit people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> So none of these bombs blew up? So many bombs and not one explosion? So what's the point?
> 
> Even the dipshit that shot up the Republican baseball game managed to fire his weapon and hit people.


What's the point? Scare tacit, that is what terrorism is. To put fear into people, to go to work, or even open their mail.

Would you be happier if a bomb went off? FFS only on WF


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What's the point? Scare tacit, that is what terrorism is. To put fear into people, to go to work, or even open their mail.
> 
> Would you be happier if a bomb went off? FFS only on WF


I never said that, my point is that with so many bombs if the intent was to scare or maim a bomb would have went off. It's why my example of that mass shooter is key, he failed but he tried, this doesn't even seem like trying, it accomplishes the exact opposite.

There's already people on Twitter saying it's an attack by the Right so to go out and vote! What strange timing this is. Maybe it's legit, maybe it isn't. Doesn't matter the people who don't critically think are already foaming at the mouth. 

Had these bombs been sent to Republicans or whoever else, I'm sure we'd be seeing false flag posts because it would seem a little suspect right? :quite


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Eric Holder is the next one.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055135848767864833


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I never said that, my point is that with so many bombs if the intent was to scare or maim a bomb would have went off. It's why my example of that mass shooter is key, he failed but he tried, this doesn't even seem like trying, it accomplishes the exact opposite.
> 
> There's already people on Twitter saying it's an attack by the Right so to go out and vote! What strange timing this is. Maybe it's legit, maybe it isn't. Doesn't matter the people who don't critically think are already foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Had these bombs been sent to Republicans or whoever else, I'm sure we'd be seeing false flag posts because it would seem a little suspect right? :quite


Is kind of strange how everyone seems to be opening up their mail at the same exact time.

And that the mailman is dropping them off minutes of each other in different states on different coast with different mail systems


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Ok, this shit is way to coordinated to be just a few lone nuts.


----------



## Headliner

I'll stab someone for messing with Kamala bae. 


Berzerker's Beard said:


> Yup watching CNN and they are already ramping up the rhetoric and subtly implicating right wingers.
> 
> This is a work, no doubt about it. The dems have sunk to a new low. Disgusting.


Stopppp.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Is kind of strange how everyone seems to be opening up their mail at the same exact time.
> 
> And that the mailman is dropping them off minutes of each other in different states on different coast with different mail systems


That's not suspicious at all, everyone across different time zones get their mail at exactly the same time. Not at all suspicious!

To be fair I'm expecting Republicans to receive "suspicious packages" and "threats" before voting starts. Something theatrical, maybe a foiled "chemical attack" or mailed ricin or some poison. I won't say a mass shooting, I'm expecting that for a Democrat rally before the election, cannot have too many copies. 

Whatever it is, it will be great theater and the people will eat it up!


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055139081716490240
NY Governor Andrew Cuomo confirmed a bomb was sent to his office as well.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Can we just have a fucking civil war already?! I just don't care anymore! I just want the bullshit to be done with already!


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Can we just have a fucking civil war already?! I just don't care anymore! I just want the bullshit to be done with already!


:woah just take it easy man.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> Stopppp.


Well it's either:

A) a right wing nut

B) inside left job

C) a foreign enemy


An enemy would know that the intended targets like Soros, Obama and Clinton would never even come into contact with these packages. They would also have to know that this would become a major news story and cast suspicion upon their rivals. Also keep in mind that none of the devices detonated. 

So little has been revealed and yet CNN still insists on being slick and associating this with right wingers. What could they possibly have to gain from this?

Use common sense.


----------



## Draykorinee

Headliner said:


> I'll stab someone for messing with Kamala bae.
> 
> 
> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup watching CNN and they are already ramping up the rhetoric and subtly implicating right wingers.
> 
> This is a work, no doubt about it. The dems have sunk to a new low. Disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> Stopppp.
Click to expand...

Where do these dregs of the right come from?


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

and now maxine waters...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055151976038785024


----------



## Bobby Lee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It's just headlines... some commentary about the headlines. Our world is Kayfabe.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

so to recap,

George Soros
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Brennan/CNN
Eric Holder (package failed to deliver, and had the return address of Debbie Wassermann Schultz)
Kamala Harris (?)(heard it might've been a false alarm)
Andrew Cuomo
Maxine Waters


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DaRealNugget said:


> and now maxine waters...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055151976038785024


So coordinated, such big names, surely must be the work of some random guy. :laugh:


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Candace Owens is really trying to become the dumbest republican out there.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055152462061957121


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Just as everything seems to be going too well for the Republicans, between the weapons-grade persuasive "#JobsNotMobs" campaign and the Democrat-supported caravan from Honduras which is known to contain criminals and terrorists, this happens. :hmm: If you're not suspicious, you're naive.


----------



## nonogs

It will probably come to light that it is a Democrat or several democrats doing this to get sympathy for the democrats in the elections.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Just as everything seems to be going too well for the Republicans, between the weapons-grade persuasive "#JobsNotMobs" campaign and the Democrat-supported caravan from Honduras which is known to contain criminals and terrorists, this happens. :hmm: If you're not suspicious, you're naive.


Had a feeling that it was only a matter of time before you start talking like Alex Jones.


----------



## Headliner

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Well it's either:
> 
> A) a right wing nut
> 
> B) inside left job
> 
> C) a foreign enemy
> 
> 
> An enemy would know that the intended targets like Soros, Obama and Clinton would never even come into contact with these packages. They would also have to know that this would become a major news story and cast suspicion upon their rivals. Also keep in mind that none of the devices detonated.
> 
> So little has been revealed and yet CNN still insists on being slick and associating this with right wingers. What could they possibly have to gain from this?
> 
> Use common sense.


Common sense suggests this is a fringe Trump supporter based on who received these items. A lot of those extreme bigot, conspiracy theorist, fringe and simply dumb Trump supporters frequent internet sites like 4chan and reddit and they think of dark shit like this. All you're doing is seeing something happen in real life that's probably been talked about numerous times by those type of people.

2 plus 2 is 4.



Draykorinee said:


> Where do these dregs of the right come from?


A fucking sewer.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> A fucking sewer.


They all float down there


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> *Common sense suggests this is a fringe Trump supporter based on who received these items*. A lot of those extreme bigot, conspiracy theorist, fringe and simply dumb Trump supporters frequent internet sites like 4chan and reddit and they think of dark shit like this. All you're doing is seeing something happen in real life that's probably been talked about numerous times by those type of people.
> 
> 2 plus 2 is 4.


A highly deranged Trump supporter who spends his days locked in a room posting on forums all day and trolling people... is also a James Bond type villain who can orchestrate a grand scheme of this magnitude? A scheme that spans several states, would have no doubt required multiple people to be involved... and possibly even connections to some of the most powerful people in government? All without leaving ANY evidence of their identity? This doesn't sound like a MAGA freak you are describing, it sounds like Bane.

The idea that this could be a put on by the dems to invoke sympathy from the public ahead of the elections and to neutralize the "mob" accusations... is actually far less outlandish than what you just described. Politicians and media manufacture stories all the time.

If this was truly some right wing nut then he will be caught. There is no way the average person (or average Reddit troll) would be capable of committing a crime of this stature involving MAIL without it being traced back to them. However if there is no resolution to this story then you can bet your ass it was a work by the dems.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> A highly deranged Trump supporter who spends his days locked in a room posting on forums all day and trolling people... is also a James Bond type villain who can orchestrate a grand scheme of this magnitude? A scheme that spans several states, would have no doubt required multiple people to be involved... and possibly even connections to some of the most powerful people in government? All without leaving ANY evidence of their identity? This doesn't sound like a MAGA freak you are describing, it sounds like Bane.
> 
> The idea that this could be a put on by the dems to invoke sympathy from the public ahead of the elections and to neutralize the "mob" accusations... is actually far less outlandish than what you just described. Politicians and media manufacture stories all the time.
> 
> If this was truly some right wing nut then he will be caught. There is no way the average person (or average Reddit troll) would be capable of committing a crime of this stature involving MAIL without it being traced back to them. However if there is no resolution to this story then you can bet your ass it was a work by the dems.


I am sure that the guy(or gal) just went to the local UPS and said 

"Hey I would like to send all of these packages to let's see... Ummm Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, George Soros, CNN, Maxine Waters etc. and the kid behind the counter's only response was 

"So do you want insurance with that or no"


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> A highly deranged Trump supporter who spends his days locked in a room posting on forums all day and trolling people... is also a James Bond type villain who can orchestrate a grand scheme of this magnitude? A scheme that spans several states, would have no doubt required multiple people to be involved... and possibly even connections to some of the most powerful people in government? All without leaving ANY evidence of their identity? This doesn't sound like a MAGA freak you are describing, it sounds like Bane.
> 
> The idea that this could be a put on by the dems to invoke sympathy from the public ahead of the elections and to neutralize the "mob" accusations... is actually far less outlandish than what you just described. Politicians and media manufacture stories all the time.
> 
> If this was truly some right wing nut then he will be caught. There is no way the average person (or average Reddit troll) would be capable of committing a crime of this stature involving MAIL without it being traced back to them. However if there is no resolution to this story then you can bet your ass it was a work by the dems.


You said everything I expected you to say as a MAGA loyalist. You all sound the exact same. There's no reason to continue.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> A highly deranged Trump supporter who spends his days locked in a room posting on forums all day and trolling people... is also a James Bond type villain who can orchestrate a grand scheme of this magnitude? A scheme that spans several states, would have no doubt required multiple people to be involved... and possibly even connections to some of the most powerful people in government? All without leaving ANY evidence of their identity? This doesn't sound like a MAGA freak you are describing, it sounds like Bane.
> 
> The idea that this could be a put on by the dems to invoke sympathy from the public ahead of the elections and to neutralize the "mob" accusations... is actually far less outlandish than what you just described. Politicians and media manufacture stories all the time.
> 
> If this was truly some right wing nut then he will be caught. There is no way the average person (or average Reddit troll) would be capable of committing a crime of this stature involving MAIL without it being traced back to them. However if there is no resolution to this story then you can bet your ass it was a work by the dems.


71% of terrorist attacks in the US are by right winged extremist, only 3% are from left wing extremist. (other is muslim 26%)

But surrrrre its most likely from a left wing person.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I am sure that the guy(or gal) just went to the local UPS and said
> 
> "Hey I would like to send all of these packages to let's see... Ummm Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, George Soros, CNN, Maxine Waters etc. and the kid behind the counter's only response was
> 
> "So do you want insurance with that or no"












"Sounds pretty reasonable to me, this is just a reminder that you need to vote Democrat on November 6th"


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> 71% of terrorist attacks in the US are by right winged extremist, only 3% are from left wing extremist. (other is muslim 26%)
> 
> But surrrrre its most likely from a left wing person.


If it's just some random right wing person then they should be caught swiftly by the FBI right? How hard can it be to trace the origin of these packages?

I will ban bet you for *3 months* that no suspects are taken into custody... even going past the elections. Hell I'll even give you until the new year. If they catch the perp and it turns out to be a right wing nut bag, the mods can ban me for 3 months. If no one is caught, then YOU have to be banned for 3 months.

Do you accept this challenge?


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055161013828546561
:lol the onion's been a role lately.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055265872930095104
I honestly haven't bothered to look at the truth of his claims (and at this point I don't really care to), but this is an epic burial. 

"I'm not calling him a racist, I'm just sayin' that the racists believe he's a racist" - Andrew Gillum on his Republican opponent in Florida :mj4


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Gillum is a killer. He's had many brilliant one or two liners in that debate and the previous debate they had on CNN a few days ago. He's got the charisma and presence.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

At this point given the fact that there are literal white supremacists doing whatever the fuck they can to gain power through white sympathizers who refuse to denounce them (in reference to the robocalls that went out against Gillum), I'm enraged enough to contact the democrat party of Florida and offer up my front lawn for one of their signs (not sure if they do that or not, but no harm in asking). :draper2

I'm apolitical with regards to party affiliation, but enough is enough of this racist garbage.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055265872930095104
> I honestly haven't bothered to look at the truth of his claims (and at this point I don't really care to), but this is an epic burial.
> 
> "I'm not calling him a racist, I'm just sayin' that the racists believe he's a racist" - Andrew Gillum on his Republican opponent in Florida :mj4


:lmao

isn't desantis the motherfucker who told florida not to "monkey this up" when gillum won the primary?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DaRealNugget said:


> :lmao
> 
> isn't desantis the motherfucker who told florida not to "monkey this up" when gillum won the primary?


Yup. Same. 

But you know what, now that we've brought this up, expect a half a dozen posts telling us what he really meant by monkey because ya know, nothing anyone ever does is racist at all.


----------



## Chrome

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Damn I wanna vote for Gillum now and I don't even live in Florida lol.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055265872930095104
> I honestly haven't bothered to look at the truth of his claims (and at this point I don't really care to), but this is an epic burial.
> 
> "I'm not calling him a racist, I'm just sayin' that the racists believe he's a racist" - Andrew Gillum on his Republican opponent in Florida :mj4


It's just sad that Gillum is cozying up to neoliberals and their policies. He started out with such potential.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055331130004725760


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Who was it that shared 100 isis members captured in migrant caravan?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-45951102

There aren't even any middle eastern in the Caravan and Trump had to back down on his fear mongering.

:trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> It's just sad that Gillum is cozying up to neoliberals and their policies. He started out with such potential.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055331130004725760


He's a career politician (39 and already in politics for 16 odd years). If the choice is between center right and far right then the choice is obvious though. At least gillum will potentially support healthcare reform.

Yes I'm aware choosing not to vote is an option as well.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> Common sense suggests this is a fringe Trump supporter based on who received these items. A lot of those extreme bigot, conspiracy theorist, fringe and simply dumb Trump supporters frequent internet sites like 4chan and reddit and they think of dark shit like this. All you're doing is seeing something happen in real life that's probably been talked about numerous times by those type of people.
> 
> 2 plus 2 is 4.
> 
> 
> A fucking sewer.


Possible but this is way too big and no damage has been done, as I said earlier with the Republican game shooter, he had a plan, this is just extremely basic and overall silly. Also that CNN, taking pics of the bomb and not just leaving, the postage not being enough and couriers don't carry postage packages anyways. While the others maybe a group of some whackjobs, it wouldn't surprise me if CNN faked their own. :laugh:

Something about this just doesn't add up. Frankly I don't care who done it, false flagging retards, MAGA gang, a group of trolls or whomever else, just want them caught. Though it didn't take Clinton long to get on twitter and use the bomb scare to scare people to the voting booths. I have my issues with Obama but this bitch is has no redeeming qualities.

I expect everyone to be here when the Republicans get some bombs etc sent to them, maybe ricin? Wait didn't that happen not to long ago..? It will make for some interesting reading.

Betcha 5 dollars we'll know all about this right after they tell us everything about the vegas shooting.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

In some good news



> Democrat Gov. Gina Raimondo has signed legislation permitting those with past marijuana convictions to have their records expunged.
> 
> House Bill 8355/S. 2447 allows those with past convictions for crimes involving the possession of less than one ounce of cannabis to petition the court to seek an order of expungement. It states, “[W]here the court has determined that all conditions of the original criminal sentence have been completed, … the court [will] order the expungement without cost to the petitioner.” The law took effect upon passage.
> 
> State lawmakers decriminalzed minor marijuana possession offenses in 2013.
> 
> “If an act has been decriminalized since a person was charged and paid their price for it, that person shouldn’t have to keep paying the price in the form of being denied jobs and other opportunities because of their criminal record,” bill sponsor Sen. Harold Metts said in a statement. “Let them move on, and they can better support themselves and their families and contribute to our communities and our state.”
> 
> Delaware lawmakers passed similar legislation this month permitting the expungement of marijuana-related offenses that have since been decriminalized. That bill is awaiting action from the Governor. Maryland enacted a similar law in 2017.
> 
> Both Massachusetts and Oregon have enacted legislation vacating the convictions of marijuana-related crimes that are now defined as legal under state law. In California, where voters elected to legalize the adult use of marijuana in 2016, District Attorneys in various cities and counties – including San Francisco and San Diego – are automatically reviewing and dismissing thousands of past marijuana-related convictions.


https://web.archive.org/web/20181024233754/http://blog.norml.org/2018/07/11/rhode-island-governor-signs-marijuana-expungement-legislation-into-law/


----------



## JasonLives

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

As an outsider to the US system, I gotta say im frightened how vicious and angry most of the US are. It doesnt matter if youre a republican or a democrat, both sides are acting alike. 

Nobody is better then the other. Everyone is trying to justify their cause with some excuse. 

Seeing people yelling at eachother, verbally attacking politicians at restaurangs. If anyone justifies that youre a complete idiot. 

People really need to start looking at themselves in the mirror and question their own sanity, goes for both politicians and the people.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



JasonLives said:


> As an outsider to the US system, I gotta say im frightened how vicious and angry most of the US are. It doesnt matter if youre a republican or a democrat, both sides are acting alike.
> 
> Nobody is better then the other. Everyone is trying to justify their cause with some excuse.
> 
> Seeing people yelling at eachother, verbally attacking politicians at restaurangs. If anyone justifies that youre a complete idiot.
> 
> People really need to start looking at themselves in the mirror and question their own sanity, goes for both politicians and the people.


At this point I just want to go and hibernate for a few months.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*Bombs Sent to Biden and Robert De Niro, Latest in Wave of Explosives Sent to Trump Critics*



> Two additional pipe bombs, one addressed to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the other to actor Robert De Niro have been found, law enforcement officials said on Thursday, the latest in a wave of similar devices sent to several prominent Democrats who have been have been the rhetorical targets of President Trump and several right-wing figures.
> 
> A law enforcement official said the envelope and printed address labels on the package sent to Mr. De Niro were similar to those on explosives sent to former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others, and an X-ray showed it contained a similar device resembling a pipe bomb.
> 
> “This appears to be from the same sender,” the official said.
> 
> The United States Postal Service records images of mail that comes into its system. Officials searched those images overnight and found several other suspicious packages, a law enforcement official said. It was not immediately clear how many they discovered.
> 
> The device sent to Mr. Biden was found at a U.S. postal service facility in Delaware, a law enforcement official said. Similar to the one sent to former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., the envelope was misaddressed and was being redirected to the return sender written on the mailing label, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida congresswoman.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/nyregion/bomb-explosive-device.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR29oVjISz1hrsAvkoL_eIuU4AnFXzbrYg0HKnuZ0fn_2xw-al2AuRfQ45Q


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Something isn't adding up with these bomb threats. I do believe they're genuine but too on the nose and is starting to feel like orchestrated chaos; a deliberate attempt to change the topic of discussion. Sadly, our media seems capable of only focusing on one issue at a time. 

Andrew Gillium is my kind of guy. I hope he brings it on home. 

I'll be happy when our politics return to relative sanity. It makes me miss sex scandals being the biggest shocker.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Empress said:


> Andrew Gillium is my kind of guy. I hope he brings it on home.


He's polling well, but unfortunately, I've seen a lot of well meaning people fall into the trap of some pretty crazy rhetoric.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> He's polling well, but unfortunately, I've seen a lot of well meaning people fall into the trap of some pretty crazy rhetoric.


Do you think he can pull off the win and govern more to the middle? I know many people abhor centrists and he's far from one but something's got to give. Compromise isn't an ugly trait.


----------



## JasonLives

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Empress said:


> Something isn't adding up with these bomb threats. I do believe they're genuine but too on the nose and is starting to feel like orchestrated chaos; a deliberate attempt to change the topic of discussion. Sadly, our media seems capable of only focusing on one issue at a time.
> 
> Andrew Gillium is my kind of guy. I hope he brings it on home.
> 
> I'll be happy when our politics return to relative sanity. It makes me miss sex scandals being the biggest shocker.


What I find odd is that both Biden and Waters had two bombs(packages) sent to them. Why would you send two bombs to the same person? Its a waste of a "good bombs". 

Considering we are upp to 9(?) bombs, and not one of them has gone off, I can only think that they were designed to strike fear. And not actually blow up. 
Of course I might be expecting too much thinking from some lunatic. And the person is just out for attention. 

My front runner is still some guy that is pro Trump(Blaming Trump for this is idiotic though) with a history of mental problems.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DaRealNugget said:


> *Bombs Sent to Biden and Robert De Niro, Latest in Wave of Explosives Sent to Trump Critics*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/nyregion/bomb-explosive-device.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR29oVjISz1hrsAvkoL_eIuU4AnFXzbrYg0HKnuZ0fn_2xw-al2AuRfQ45Q


CNN,The Obamas,The Clintons,Maxine Waters,Joe Biden,George Soros and Robert De Niro. These are people that the Trump supporters can't stand.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Empress said:


> *Something isn't adding up with these bomb threats. I do believe they're genuine but too on the nose and is starting to feel like orchestrated chaos; a deliberate attempt to change the topic of discussion. Sadly, our media seems capable of only focusing on one issue at a time.*
> 
> Andrew Gillium is my kind of guy. I hope he brings it on home.
> 
> I'll be happy when our politics return to relative sanity. It makes me miss sex scandals being the biggest shocker.


This happens all the time, not to mention it took Politicians all but an hour of it happening to use it as a way to gain votes. Doesn't seem the bombs were intended to kill either which makes it even more weird. The whole thing smells which is why I hope they catch the person soon. 

Still think the CNN one is done to themselves, they took pics of the bomb and acted strange for having received an explosive.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Empress said:


> Do you think he can pull off the win and govern more to the middle? I know many people abhor centrists and he's far from one but something's got to give. Compromise isn't an ugly trait.


Toss up. Gillum will get support from the south and Orlando, but he's not even working central Florida which is a huge flaw in his campaign. Central Florida is where most of the disenfranchised democrats are and it's a Trump stonghold partly because democrats are not even showing up. 

That's why Florida remains a difficult one to win for leftists. 

Gillum's own politics suggest that he will do what is necessary for his own growth and that worries me.

PS. Wife's likely voting Democrat this year.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/10/23/georgia-naacp-filed-complaint-voting-errors-some-counties/1741406002/



> *Georgia NAACP files complaints alleging voting machines incorrectly registered votes*
> 
> WASHINGTON — The Georgia NAACP filed complaints Tuesday with state election officials alleging that some voting machines mistakenly showed votes cast for Democrat Stacey Abrams registering for her opponent Republican Brian Kemp.
> 
> The state conference of the NAACP filed the complaints electronically with the Georgia Secretary of State Office saying some voting machines in two counties, including Bartow and Dodge, didn’t initially register the correct votes.
> 
> "We’ve experienced this before," said Phyllis Blake, president of the Georgia NAACP. “They ended up taking these old dilapidated machines out of service. The ones giving the problems. They should have been replaced about 10 years ago."
> 
> The complaints were shared first with USA TODAY.
> 
> Blake said she plans to file two more complaints late Tuesday involving similar complaints in Henry and Cobb counties. The complaints are on behalf of eight voters. Blake said she plans to follow up with county election officials Wednesday.
> 
> The complaints come amidst controversy over voting concerns in the competitive governor's race between Abrams and Kemp that has garnered national attention. Abrams could make history as the first African-American woman governor in the country if she wins in November.
> Hello! We’ve got complete midterm election coverage right here. Let’s begin!
> 
> But state and local election officials have come under fire from civil rights and voting rights over complaints about efforts to suppress the votes, particularly of black voters.
> 
> Kemp, who heads the state’s election system, has denied efforts to suppress the vote. His office said Wednesday morning that it is reviewing the complaints.
> 
> "If warranted, our office will open a formal investigation on behalf of the State Election Board,'' Candice Broce, a spokeswoman, said in an email. "We always encourage voters to reach out to our office if they experience any issues or witness any suspicious activity at the polls."
> 
> One of the complaints is on behalf of Pamela Grimes.
> 
> Grimes said she went to a polling site in Bartow County Thursday and tried to select Abrams, but the machine marked the box for Kemp. Grimes said she tried several times to clear the selection before it allowed her to vote for Abrams.
> 
> “I was not going to leave until everything was the way I wanted it,’’ recalled Grimes, adding she also paid close attention to other selections. “If I had not been focused, my vote would have went for him.”
> 
> Grimes said she has since warned other voters. “I’ve been telling people when you vote to pay attention,’’ she said.
> 
> Dexter Benning, a Democratic board member for the Bartow Board of Elections and Voter Registration, said he raised the concern with an election supervisor who told him because of older machines there may be a problem with calibration.
> 
> Benning, who also voted on that same machine, said he had to touch the screen twice to make sure the correct candidate was selected. It worked, he said.
> 
> “We’re telling people just to check it,” Benning said. “We’re also telling them to check and make sure they haven’t been purged from the voting rolls.”
> 
> Benning said he doesn’t think there’s a systemic problem with voting machines, but he's concerned that many are old and need to be replaced.
> 
> Benning said with concerns about voter suppression and obstacles to voting, “the last thing we need to have is a problem with the machines."
> 
> The NAACP complaints are filed on behalf of African-American voters, but Bartow and Dodge are predominately white counties.
> 
> Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that 53,000 voter registrations were put on hold because information on the voter applications did not precisely match information on file with the Georgia Department of Driver Services or the Social Security Administration.
> 
> In August, a coalition of state and national groups rallied against a plan in Randolph County to close seven of nine polling sites in the predominately black county. The election officials rejected the plan. Abrams and Kemp had urged county election officials to drop the plan.
> 
> The national NAACP, which has focused some of it get-out-the-vote efforts in Georgia, has vowed to watch for voting concerns in the state.
> 
> “The essence of our democracy is at stake,'' Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, said in a statement.
> 
> Civil rights and voting rights groups have called for Kemp to resign, citing a conflict of interest as the head of the state’s election systems.
> 
> A coalition of local and national civil and voting rights groups, including Black Voters Matters and the New Georgia Project, and area churches plan to hold a “No Voter Suppression” rally in Atlanta on Sunday to protest what they call voter suppression tactics.
> 
> The rally will be followed by buses headed to eight surrounding counties to take voters to the polls for early voting. The “Fight back Freedom Rides” harken to the 1960s civil rights movement when activists rode buses through to the South to fight for equal rights.
> 
> “We’re in hand to hand combat,” said LaToscha Brown, a co-founder of Black Voters Matter, which has been leading a get-out-the-vote bus tour through the South.
> 
> Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., who was a Freedom Rider, has urged voters to show up at the polls.
> 
> Dale Ho, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, told reporters Tuesday that voter suppression efforts seem to be clustered in states with competitive races, including Georgia and Indiana.
> 
> He said the ACLU and other voting rights groups have challenged changes in state election laws, including voter ID laws, during a “burst” of activity from 2011 to 2013.
> 
> But Ho said this election cycle voter suppression efforts have “come roaring back.”


We use old voting machines here in Georgia. They're the same ones from the 2004 election. They are running on Windows XP still. There is not paper copy of your vote, it's all just on a flash card you hand back to the poll worker. They have been proven repeatedly to be unsecured.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Oh look more fuckery in Texas
https://abc13.com/politics/straight-party-voters-reporting-their-votes-were-changed/4556377/

Some people picking straight democrat and Ted Cruz is showing up instead of Beto.

Funny how these "glitches" seem to almost always favor Republicans.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Great Twitter thread exposes the hypocrisy of the left and CNN (but I repeat myself) regarding the bombs (some of which, perhaps all, seem to have been fake).  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055499875201236992


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Great Twitter thread exposes the hypocrisy of the left and CNN (but I repeat myself) regarding the bombs (some of which, perhaps all, seem to have been fake).


I agree. This is why Alex Jones has said numerous times CNN Is ISIS.

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Saw these two stories on local news.






and

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/dekalb-county/state-investigating-claims-local-elections-office-lost-1-000s-of-absentee-ballot-applications/859826997



> *State investigating new claims regarding absentee ballot applications*
> 
> DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. - Channel 2 Action News has confirmed that Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp's office is investigating claims that a local county elections office lost thousands of absentee ballot applications.
> 
> Channel 2 investigative reporter Aaron Diamant has learned that leaders of the Democratic Party of Georgia contacted officials in Kemp’s office, claiming the party had evidence that as many as 4,700 DeKalb County voters never received the absentee-by-mail ballots they requested for November’s election.
> 
> A representative for the secretary of state’s office told Diamant as soon as the call came in, state elections director Chris Harvey and another investigator headed to DeKalb County and met with the county’s elections director and other county election leaders.
> 
> By email, the chair of DeKalb’s elections board told Diamant that the state Democratic party did hand over a list of about 4,700 registered DeKalb voters the party claims requested absentee ballot forms through a mailer sent out by the party. But in that same email the chairman said:
> 
> “After reviewing the list of names, there is only evidence that the county received 50 of those voter absentee ballot request forms. All 50 of those forms have been processed. At this time, there is no evidence that there are any missing or lost absentee ballot request forms. The Elections Department receives request forms daily and processes them within three days of receipt. At this time there are approximately 250 forms pending processing.”
> 
> The secretary of state’s office says it has no proof of any missing absentee ballot requests and is still waiting for the party to provide them with any evidence they may have but that it takes complaints seriously and will continue to investigate.
> 
> The state Democratic party sent Diamant a statement, saying:
> 
> "The Democratic Party of Georgia learned from voters calling our voter protection hotline that 4,700 voters in DeKalb County who requested mail-in ballot applications did not receive ballots from the county board of elections. We have USPS scans that show 4,700 ballot applications were delivered, but the county board has only been able to find 48 of them.”


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I agree. This is why Alex Jones has said numerous times CNN Is ISIS.
> 
> - Vic


Alex Jones also says that they're putting stuff in the water to turn frogs gay and that Sandy Hook children were actor's.


----------



## BRITLAND

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Sorry if this thread is mainly for American politics that isn't Trump but anyway
@DOPA; 

Would love to hear your thoughts any any other fellow Brits on the new proposed Act of the Union Bill 2018
http://www.constitutionreformgroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CRG-Act-of-Union-Bill.pdf

The bill is basically an attempt at reforming the UK Political structure to a more federal one, the bill lists ideas of what reserved federal/central powers would be, options for England be it an English Parliament or regional/county devolution, new funding committees and Lords reform. They also insist on it being a referendum with two questions (three if in England).


----------



## Clique

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



BRITLAND said:


> Sorry if this thread is mainly for American politics that isn't Trump but anyway


As stated in my OP this thread is for all political and social topics internationally. You good.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Clique

A message for the chil’ren...in these streets...


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

#PrayForBrazil is trending on Twitter right now. And I'm like, if praying worked, maybe you shoulda done that before a fascist got elected. Idjits. fpalm


----------



## Draykorinee

The last Brazilian president had a 2% approval rating. Ouch. 

It's just another Duterte, a guy running on crime in a shithole country, I can kinda understand. 

Most of my students are Filipino and they're the gentlist and nicest people you'll ever meet but they like the guy even though he's killed thousands with his literal death squads.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> It's just another Duterte, a guy running on crime in a shithole country, I can kinda understand.


Apparently he's much worse than Duterte.

Duterte supports killing drug dealers without trial, this guy apparently has publicly supported killing his political opponents and doing away with elections. 

It's not like Duterte is good, but by all accounts this guy is another level worse.


----------



## PrettyLush

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Congratz to Jair Bolsonaro!


----------



## Draykorinee

Angela Merkel has decided to step down as party leader, should hopefully lead to get being ousted from the chancellory too. Time to rid Europe of the odious toad.

Her refugee decisions have led to a resurgence of the far right across Europe.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Angela Merkel has decided to step down as party leader, should hopefully lead to get being ousted from the chancellory too. Time to rid Europe of the odious toad.
> 
> Her refugee decisions have led to a resurgence of the far right across Europe.


Well some good news for Germany. Lets hope she's gone for good soon.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Europeans' love affair with the far right will end once the far right starts banning porn, sex toys and introducing austerity measures.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Apparently he's much worse than Duterte.
> 
> Duterte supports killing drug dealers without trial, this guy apparently has publicly supported killing his political opponents and doing away with elections.
> 
> It's not like Duterte is good, but by all accounts this guy is another level worse.


yeah but drug dealers are actually useful to people unlike politicians or elections


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Due to the controversies over voting here in Georgia the last couple of months Jimmy Carter is calling on Brian Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State to resign since he is running for governor and is in charge of securing his own election.



> October 22, 2018
> 
> To Secretary of State Brian Kemp:
> 
> I have officially observed scores of doubtful elections in many countries, and one of the key requirements for a fair and trusted process is that there be nonbiased supervision of the electoral process.
> 
> In Georgia's upcoming gubernatorial election, popular confidence is threatened not only by the undeniable racial discrimination of the past and the serious questions that the federal courts have raised about the security of Georgia's voting machines, but also because you are now overseeing the election in which you are a candidate. This runs counter to the most fundamental principle of democratic elections — that the electoral process be managed by an independent and impartial election authority. Other secretaries of state have stepped down while running for election within their jurisdiction, to ensure that officials without a direct stake in the process can take charge and eliminate concerns about a conflict of interest.
> 
> In order to foster voter confidence in the upcoming election, which will be especially important if the race ends up very close, I urge you to step aside and hand over to a neutral authority the responsibility of overseeing the governor's election. This would not address every concern, but it would be a sign that you recognize the importance of this key democratic principle and want to ensure the confidence of our citizens in the outcome.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jimmy Carter
> 
> The Honorable Brian F. Kemp
> 
> Secretary of State
> 
> 214 State Capitol
> 
> Atlanta, Georgia 30334


On one hand I'm not comfortable with anyone running for office and at the same time being in charge of securing the election they're running in. However since that is how things currently work and he was duly elected, I don't know about resignation. There have been some hinky things going on though. I personally wold have preferred him to recuse himself from the job during the duration of his campaign for governor. If he wins then he resigns and if he loses he can go back to being SOS.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Due to the controversies over voting here in Georgia the last couple of months Jimmy Carter is calling on Brian Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State to resign since he is running for governor and is in charge of securing his own election.
> 
> 
> 
> On one hand I'm not comfortable with anyone running for office and at the same time being in charge of securing the election they're running in. However since that is how things currently work and he was duly elected, I don't know about resignation. There have been some hinky things going on though. I personally wold have preferred him to recuse himself from the job during the duration of his campaign for governor. If he wins then he resigns and if he loses he can go back to being SOS.





> The Honorable Brian F. Kemp


:ha

Nothing honorable about this asshole. He is blatantly rigging the election in an attempt to win. It's still possible that he loses but if he does, it'll be because the votes against him overwhelmed what was stolen.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






A better title would be the end of the illusion of reality or competing contemporary realities. Reality isn't absolute. Kayfabe is though :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Due to the controversies over voting here in Georgia the last couple of months Jimmy Carter is calling on Brian Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State to resign since he is running for governor and is in charge of securing his own election.
> 
> 
> 
> On one hand I'm not comfortable with anyone running for office and at the same time being in charge of securing the election they're running in. However since that is how things currently work and he was duly elected, I don't know about resignation. There have been some hinky things going on though. I personally wold have preferred him to recuse himself from the job during the duration of his campaign for governor. If he wins then he resigns and if he loses he can go back to being SOS.


It's too late now anyway, al the votes he stole will probably get him the election. The GOP is going to seal the midterms and nothing will be done about it


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Anyone read about this? The woman in office here in MN who may have married her brother to get him into the country? Someone posted it and it's hard to find verifiable information. I checked the site this is on and it's said to have a right wing bias but has high factual reporting (well the first link at least, second link has mixed reporting). Kinda effed up if true but who knows.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/curious-case-ilhan-omar-14724.html

https://pjmedia.com/davidsteinberg/...first-husband-throughout-her-second-marriage/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/city-journal/


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



BRITLAND said:


> Sorry if this thread is mainly for American politics that isn't Trump but anyway
> 
> @DOPA;
> 
> Would love to hear your thoughts any any other fellow Brits on the new proposed Act of the Union Bill 2018
> http://www.constitutionreformgroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CRG-Act-of-Union-Bill.pdf
> 
> The bill is basically an attempt at reforming the UK Political structure to a more federal one, the bill lists ideas of what reserved federal/central powers would be, options for England be it an English Parliament or regional/county devolution, new funding committees and Lords reform. They also insist on it being a referendum with two questions (three if in England).



Sorry for the late response but I have been busy. Thank you for tagging me as I know we have both talked about parliamentary reform and the decentralization of power which I think both of us agree is one of the biggest issues concerning our country. I'd put it as number 1 with healthcare and obviously Brexit as far as long term issues are concerned.

Overall I find the bill to be a very positive step forward, I would like it to go further in terms of decentralization but in the bill itself, it does state in the event of a yes vote in a referendum that further steps towards devolution would be introduced and debated, so I am happy overall with what has been presented.

The main point of emphasis which I think should be looked at closely in terms of what impact it would make to our political process is to do with the House of Lords, more specifically it's replacement which would be the scrutiny committee. I am very much in favour of abolishing or at the very least reforming the House of Lords though I am cautious about it's replacement only because I don't know how it would work in practice. So I would have to learn more about what the scrutiny committee's role would be and what powers they would have before being completely on board. I am encouraged by the fact that the scrutiny committee is split up in terms of provincial governments (England, Scotland etc.) so that is applicable to each country and is more efficient. But I'll have to learn more before completely being on board.

I even like the House of Lords reform option though I do not like the idea of appointed members even at a lower rate, particularly as it would likely be done through peerage which has always been fucking awful to say the least....(and I get accused of being conservative....damn  ).

I love the fact that this pushes for less UK MP's, we have far too many under the current system, many of whom are career politicians who seek to get re-elected cycle after cycle without doing a damn thing. I would like to introduce term limits for both the PM and MP's but that's another subject for another time.

One thing I found interesting was in terms of tax legislation for individual subnational governments was the avoidance of tax competition due to economic distortions. I've debated this topic with a friend of mine. In terms of local taxation I am overall for competition because I think states/provinces should be able to set their own local taxes to fit the needs of their constituents. My friend disagrees with me due to the argument of economic distortion which has been hinted at in the document. Though looking at it in a pragmatic way, I don't think we could even talk about the issue of independence of local taxation until we get to a situation where the UK is a proper federal system with defined provinces or counties so I think it's not a huge issue to be hung up about right now anyway. It's just something I found interesting.

Overall though, I like the direction this bill is going in. It's a good start .


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!!


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Jair Bolsonaro elected Brazilian President, Empress Merkel is stepping down, and Justin Trudeau will most likely get voted out next year. Sanity is returning to world politics. 

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> Jair Bolsonaro elected Brazilian President, Empress Merkel is stepping down, and Justin Trudeau will most likely get voted out next year. Sanity is returning to world politics.
> 
> - Vic


Not surprised you'd support a guy who said he believed in dictatorships or that he'd prefer a dead soon to a gay one. He defeated a centrist so not sure this is the example of the sanity you're looking for.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!!


"Japanese people are literally Hitler"


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057703421778845696
:lol

For bonus lol's look at the replies from outraged pearl-clutchers. How dare he make light of a SERIAL KILLER! :lol


----------



## BRITLAND

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> Sorry for the late response but I have been busy. Thank you for tagging me as I know we have both talked about parliamentary reform and the decentralization of power which I think both of us agree is one of the biggest issues concerning our country. I'd put it as number 1 with healthcare and obviously Brexit as far as long term issues are concerned.
> 
> Overall I find the bill to be a very positive step forward, I would like it to go further in terms of decentralization but in the bill itself, it does state in the event of a yes vote in a referendum that further steps towards devolution would be introduced and debated, so I am happy overall with what has been presented.


Yeah it does proposed two options for England whether to go the English Parliament route or a more regional route. My main difference with it is in regards to the regional option the regions should have all the powers of the nations, maybe the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales can be reserved to UK Parliament with Scottish and NI MPs having a rule of not voting on bills in this area that could work (for example, Quebec has its own separate immigration system while for the rest of the provinces immigration is mostly a federal matter).

If it goes the English Parliament option I personally would prefer a separately elected English Parliament. Yeah you could do the whole make the House of Commons the English Parliament with 501 members while the UK Parliament can replace the Lords with 146 MPs but I don't like the idea of England and the UK Parliament sharing the same building. I would like to see a new English Parliament move somewhere up north, maybe York, along with English only civil service depts like Dept of Education, Health, DEFRA moving up north for further decentralisation while London would mainly have the main UK federal depts like FCO, Home Office, Defence, DFID etc.

I guess if the UK were to break up e.g Scotland and Wales independent and NI becomes part of the Republic, then the new Kingdom of England could use the Houses of Parliament with the Commons being the lower house with 501 MPs and if England were to become a federation with let's say the 48 counties becoming "states" or "provinces" then the Lords chamber could become the "Senate of England" were each state/province/county would elect 2 Senators every 5 years who would serve a single 15 year term (so 6 Senators per state in total, 288 Senators in total). 



> The main point of emphasis which I think should be looked at closely in terms of what impact it would make to our political process is to do with the House of Lords, more specifically it's replacement which would be the scrutiny committee. I am very much in favour of abolishing or at the very least reforming the House of Lords though I am cautious about it's replacement only because I don't know how it would work in practice. So I would have to learn more about what the scrutiny committee's role would be and what powers they would have before being completely on board. I am encouraged by the fact that the scrutiny committee is split up in terms of provincial governments (England, Scotland etc.) so that is applicable to each country and is more efficient. But I'll have to learn more before completely being on board.
> 
> I even like the House of Lords reform option though I do not like the idea of appointed members even at a lower rate, particularly as it would likely be done through peerage which has always been fucking awful to say the least....(and I get accused of being conservative....damn  ).


I'm cool with this model along the lines proposed here:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/elected-house-of-lords/

The only difference is I would only have only 150-225 members and maybe look at renaming the upper chamber "The Senate of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or "The Senate" for short since the "House of Lords" is considered elitist and toxic by both sides of the political spectrum these days. I wouldn't be too against appointed members provided they are a minority (around 45-60 appointments) and are appointed by an independent commission who would scrutinise and suggest amendments to bills, also chair Lords/Senate committees for their respective field e.g international trade, health, science etc but not vote or block legislation. 



> I love the fact that this pushes for less UK MP's, we have far too many under the current system, many of whom are career politicians who seek to get re-elected cycle after cycle without doing a damn thing. I would like to introduce term limits for both the PM and MP's but that's another subject for another time.


Voting reform is also needed, AMS, AV Plus or STV would be good with me. I would reduce the Commons to 450 members (under an AMS/AV Plus voting that would be 300 constituency MPs and 150 top up MPs elected from regional constituencies) and the English Parliament 375 members (250 constituency members and 125 top up members). I think reducing the Commons to 146 would be to dramatic, 450 is decent enough and you can always reduce it in the future.

A reformed upper house should have a term limit of 12-15 years. Not too fussed about term limits for MPs, though would definitely look into it for the Prime Minister (perhaps two consecutive terms?). We could do with a Prime Ministerial line of succession so we have a clearer idea of who will be next in Downing Street in the event a Prime Minister resigns or is incapacitated (most likely the Chancellor or whoever has the title "Deputy Prime Minister" or "First Secretary of State" (atm that would mean David Lidington or Philip Hammond would be PM if May suddenly departed, not the most exciting people on earth but probably a more suitable system than having the Tory or Labour party deciding the next PM unless you have open primaries). Either that or automatically trigger a general election in six weeks in the event a PM resigns, ideally a PM announcing their intention to resign and run a leadership contest, then resigning once the new party leader is selected and a general election then taking place in six weeks.

I would also introduce confirmation hearings carried out by Commons Select Committees who would vote to approve the appointment of any new minister, senior civil servant or senior diplomat as well as VETO appointments e.g The Home Affairs Select Committee would need to approve the appointment of a new Home Secretary and Immigration Minister. Other constitutional reforms I would like to see would be recall ballots for bad MPs and as previously mentioned open primaries for political candidates and party leaders, similar to the US but done within a quicker time period, around six weeks and I guess spending limits would be in place for campaigning.



> One thing I found interesting was in terms of tax legislation for individual subnational governments was the avoidance of tax competition due to economic distortions. I've debated this topic with a friend of mine. In terms of local taxation I am overall for competition because I think states/provinces should be able to set their own local taxes to fit the needs of their constituents. My friend disagrees with me due to the argument of economic distortion which has been hinted at in the document. Though looking at it in a pragmatic way, I don't think we could even talk about the issue of independence of local taxation until we get to a situation where the UK is a proper federal system with defined provinces or counties so I think it's not a huge issue to be hung up about right now anyway. It's just something I found interesting.


Northern Ireland already has corporation tax devolved (though they only set the rate, they don't collect and keep it) and was devolved due to competition with the Republic. 

Reports from commissions have actually said they don't want corporation tax devolved as it would result in tax competition! Labour certainly wouldn't want it, they hardly wanted Scotland to have any devolved tax powers:
https://thecommongreen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/scotland-act.jpg

I personally would fully devolve the following taxes to the four nations (or 12 regions): inheritance tax, capital gains tax, aggregates levy, air passenger duty along with each nation (or region) having their own provincial rates and bands of income tax, corporation tax and VAT. I would also replace the council tax with a local income tax and local sales tax (local VAT), levied by local authorities as well as business rates levied by local authorities. Each level of government (federal, provincial, local) should also have the sovereignty to introduce, abolish and replace taxes.

To accommodate local rates of taxation this the UK Federal income tax rates, corporation tax rates and VAT could each be lowered by 10% so for example let's say UK federal income taxes would be: £12,500 - 10%, £50,000 - 30%, £150,000 - 35%.

The nations and local authorities would have their own rates on top of that so lets say Scotland for example would have top up rates and additional bands of: £11,851 - 8% (8%), £13,851 - 9% (19%), £24,001 - 11% (21%), £43,431 - 12% (22%), £50,000 - 14% (44%), £150,000 - 15% (50%). Local income taxes levied by local authorities would probably be in the margin of 0.5-3%. 

UK Corporation Tax can be lowered to 10% which would allow the nations to set their rates so say England would be 12% (22%), Scotland 9% (19%), Wales 7% (17%) and Northern Ireland 3% (13%).

Federal VAT can be 10%, Provincial VAT should be between 3-6% for example, England could be 6% (16%), Scotland 7.5% (17.5%), Wales 7% (17%), Northern Ireland 5% (15%) and local sales tax around 0.3-3% e.g Essex LST could be 2% (18%), Glasgow City could be 0.5% (18%) and Greater Manchester 1% (17%). 

In regards to the central/federal reserve policy areas, I think that seems fair enough although I would like to see the UK Govt in the event of federalism offer grant in aid programmes like the US does such as additional money for the nations and local authorities for NHS spending. Another example could be the UK setting up a Federal Higher Education Fund which would pay tuition fees for all UK students at all universities across the UK, a model proposed by Justine Greening (its essentially a graduate tax):
https://www.justinegreening.co.uk/news/higher-education-options

Nations could opt out of things like this if they wished, for example England, Wales and NI could opt in to the Higher Education Fund but Scotland could decide to opt out and keep their status quo of tuition free university for Scottish students at Scottish universities while charging rUK students to go to Scottish universities, but of course that would mean that by opting out Scottish students would be charged fees to go to rUK universities etc 



> Overall though, I like the direction this bill is going in. It's a good start .


Much better than the status quo anyway. I think I posted a bit much in there, some slightly off topic but it's a good bill nonetheless, has some good potential :smile2:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






Kyle and Cenk correctly rip establishment media.

Meanwhile:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057264058255265792
Vote Democrat or we'll fucking kill you.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Kyle and Cenk correctly rip establishment media.
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057264058255265792
> Vote Democrat or we'll fucking kill you.


I fully expect Hollywood and the rich "Leftists" to be on the front line of any revolution that may happen. :laugh:

Oh boy these people do not live in reality.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Jair Bolsonaro elected Brazilian President, Empress Merkel is stepping down, and Justin Trudeau will most likely get voted out next year. Sanity is returning to world politics.
> 
> - Vic


A Trump supporter talking about sanity in politics. Trump does some of the most childish immature tweets I've ever seen he's not exactly sane either.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Code:


[MEDIA=twitter]1057636184514428928[/MEDIA]

Good. :) Europe is waking up.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I fully expect Hollywood and the rich "Leftists" to be on the front line of any revolution that may happen. :laugh:
> 
> Oh boy these people do not live in reality.


What do you expect when they play make believe for a living and live in closed off communities where the only time they see poor people is when they need them to do their lawns.



CamillePunk said:


> Code:
> 
> 
> [MEDIA=twitter]1057636184514428928[/MEDIA]
> 
> Good. :) Europe is waking up.


Good for Austria


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Kyle and Cenk correctly rip establishment media.
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057264058255265792
> Vote Democrat or we'll fucking kill you.


James Cromwell is a fucking idiot, that kind of rhetoric is incredibly unhelpful in the current climate.

A violent revolt because you lost a democratic vote?

:bunk

I mean democratic in the loosest sense but its still people voting even if the process is controlled by establishment politicians and large corporations. People like Cromwell are why I sometimes can at least understand why some people dislike the US 'left'. (They're not fucking left ya dumb dumbs)


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> James Cromwell is a fucking idiot, that kind of rhetoric is incredibly unhelpful in the current climate.
> 
> A violent revolt because you lost a democratic vote?
> 
> :bunk
> 
> I mean democratic in the loosest sense but its still people voting even if the process is controlled by establishment politicians and large corporations. People like Cromwell are why I sometimes can at least understand why some people dislike the US 'left'. (They're not fucking left ya dumb dumbs)


:ha @ anyone still under the illusion that we have anything even remotely resembling a democracy in the USA.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> :ha @ anyone still under the illusion that we have anything even remotely resembling a democracy in the USA.


I was reading about Beto making $38 million from small donations for an election. Thats more than the entire Conservative party and about 60% of the entire election campaign for 650 MP seats so thousands and thousands of candidates.

The amount of money is disgusting in US politics, granted Beto made it from small donations but more often its from mega corporations looking to influence policy.

UK politics isn't great right now, but I'm always amazed by state of it in the US.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Not only the amount of money. The amount of time spent campaigning in the US is absurd. Politicians spend more time campaigning than actual governing in the US. Most countries have it at most 30 days or so. American campaigns can go up to a year. The money and time is related. The longer the campaign, the more resources is required to run a well organised campaign. Though Trump seem to have smashed that conventional wisdom in 2016. Why run a well organised campaign when you can just use memes that is popular among your base?

Of course it is very hypocritical for me to bitch too much about the long campaigning as I'm a junkie for all the drama it provides.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I was reading about Beto making $38 million from small donations for an election. Thats more than the entire Conservative party and about 60% of the entire election campaign for 650 MP seats so thousands and thousands of candidates.
> 
> The amount of money is disgusting in US politics, granted Beto made it from small donations but more often its from mega corporations looking to influence policy.
> 
> UK politics isn't great right now, but I'm always amazed by state of it in the US.


A lot of the time it comes from Corporations (which can hide their influences by using small donations) and from outside people, you have people from other states funding people running in states they don't live in which is just weird. 

When it comes to US Politics you better believe Corporations, Special Interest Groups and wealthy people will be there.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://fee.org/articles/why-bolsonaro-won-brazils-presidency-in-a-landslide/



> Last Sunday, Jair M. Bolsonaro won the runoff of the 2018 Brazilian presidential election and became the 38th president of the country. He earned 55 percent of the votes against the 45 percent Fernando Haddad, the Worker’s Party (PT) candidate, received.
> 
> *Is Bolsonaro Really the 'Brazilian Trump?*
> 
> Most of the coverage from international media has been simplistic and is mostly repeating cliches, such as calling him the “Brazilian Trump” or comparing him to other right-wing candidates from other parts of the world. Although there are certainly some similarities to other candidates, these comparisons must be made with prudence.
> 
> [Bolsonaro] is breaking the standard polarization of the Brazilian elections.
> 
> Just like Trump, Bolsonaro is perceived as someone who doesn’t behave the same way or say the same rehearsed lines as every other politician. He is perceived as an outsider, as he is breaking the standard polarization of the Brazilian elections between the Worker’s Party and the Social Democratic Party. On the other hand, Bolsonaro has been a member of Congress, representing the state of Rio de Janeiro for almost 30 years. He is not a newcomer running for his first political position like Trump was.
> 
> If you have been following or at least read a piece or two from mainstream sources, you might have read about how “terrible” Bolsonaro is, and you might be wondering how he managed to win by such a wide margin. We’ll explore the five most relevant arguments his voters use to explain why they supported Bolsonaro. In advance, it’s worth pointing out that some of the arguments make more sense than others, but they are all well-known by most of the electorate and are key to understanding Bolsonaro’s victory.
> 
> *1. Crime and Corruption*
> 
> After 13 years of the Worker’s Party (PT) administration, most of its leadership went to jail after the corruption scandals of Mensalão in 2005 and Petrolão, when Operation Car Wash (Lava Jato) landed its main leader and former Brazilian president Lula da Silva in prison. In addition to PT, many other Brazilian political parties and top-ranking politicians were hit by Operation Car Wash, including Eduardo Cunha, the former president of the Brazilian lower house and a member of MDB, Michel Temer’s party. Lava Jato has sent over one hundred people to jail. Even Temer himself will be investigated the day after he leaves office and loses his presidential privileges. He might soon share a prison cell with Lula in the city of Curitiba.
> 
> Bolsonaro stands out as one of the few who is not involved in any scandal.
> 
> In this chaotic scenario, Bolsonaro stands out as one of the few with some political experience who is not involved in any scandal. At the same time, he was never part of the main political parties, which makes people see him as an outsider. He is also one of the few who is openly supporting the institutional fight the prosecutors and the judiciary are carrying out against corruption. He has said he will appoint Judge Sergio Moro, the one in charge of Lava Jato, to the Supreme Court if there is any vacancy in the Court during his term.
> 
> *2. Law and Order*
> 
> Violence in Brazil has gone up in recent years. The country currently has a murder rate of 29 per 100,000, one of the highest in the world. Bolsonaro advocates a tough approach to crime, which differentiated him from other candidates in the race. He has said he will push Congress into changing the law that now allows some criminals to leave prison after serving only one-sixth of their sentence. In contrast, Haddad said he would release criminals from prison. Some believe this was an excuse to use his presidential powers to pardon politicians found guilty in Operation Car Wash, like Lula himself, which would subvert the rule of law. Haddad’s slogan was “Haddad is Lula,” and releasing Lula was a key proposal of PT, which increased this feeling among the electorate.
> 
> Bolsonaro stands out as a law and order candidate who will support tough laws against criminals, from thieves to corrupt politicians.
> 
> Bolsonaro stands out as a law and order candidate who will support tough laws against criminals, from thieves to corrupt politicians, while Haddad is seen as someone who will be soft on them, especially because some of his closest friends could benefit. This is one of the first issues that made Bolsonaro popular and helped him build his legion of followers, the so-called Bolsominions.
> 
> *3. The Economy*
> 
> In the last four years, Brazil has been in a deep economic crisis, suffering from double-digit unemployment rates and a lack of confidence that a recovery is coming. The crisis began in 2014 when Dilma Rousseff (PT) mismanaged the budget and economic policy in order to get reelected. That was considered fraud and resulted in her impeachment in 2016, with almost 70 percent popular support. Michel Temer, the VP who ascended to the presidency, passed some important reforms, such as the spending cap amendment and the labor law reform, which helped bring some recovery and small growth.
> 
> Bolsonaro’s team includes Paulo Guedes, a free market economist who graduated from the University of Chicago.
> 
> While Bolsonaro’s team includes Paulo Guedes, a free market economist who graduated from the University of Chicago and supports previous reforms while proposing others, Haddad sought to repeal Temer’s reforms and increase government spending and taxes. This made many business owners and investors support Bolsonaro to assure a more consistent change in economic policy compared to the Rousseff administration. As most Brazilians supported her impeachment and disapproved of her economic policy, offering a drastic change helped turn Bolsonaro into the most popular politician in the country.
> 
> *4. Controversial Lines*
> 
> Bolsonaro has many absurd quotes from his term as a member of Congress. Some of them should definitely be condemned. His supporters, though, say most of them are old—that they are from the 1990s and don’t represent his current beliefs. Other quotes, they say, are out of context to the point of distortion. Most of the Brazilian people seem to see it that way, as Bolsonaro has always polled well among almost every group, including women, despite Haddad and PT calling him sexist on a daily basis.
> 
> *5. The Alternative*
> 
> Brazilian law requires an absolute majority (over 50 percent) in order for a candidate to be elected president. If no candidate achieves this in the first round, the two who receive most votes participate in a runoff.
> 
> As Americans have long known, when there are only two options, sometimes you pick 'the lesser of two evils.'
> 
> As Bolsonaro got 46 percent of the votes and Haddad got 29 percent, they went to the runoff last Sunday. Although most of the average Bolsonaro supporters focus on one of the first four arguments to justify their support, many focused on this one for the runoff: the alternative, Haddad, was worse. As Americans have long known, when there are only two options, sometimes you pick “the lesser of two evils.”
> 
> This is where mainstream international media reported poorly. They focused on all the arguments against Bolsonaro while ignoring the reasons why people were hesitant to vote for the other side.
> 
> Haddad’s proposals included “democratic control” over the media, “democratic control” over the police, and “democratic control” over the prosecutors and the Judiciary, and he also asserted that Dilma’s impeachment and Lula’s trial were both illegitimate. These stances made many feel that believing in freedom and democracy meant voting for Bolsonaro—or for no one (that is, abstaining or nullifying their votes).
> 
> Polls show that the majority of Brazilians support both the impeachment of Dilma and the conviction of Lula. Haddad using the slogan “Haddad is Lula” and saying the impeachment was a coup d'etat only made Bolsonaro stronger.
> 
> Polls also show that Bolsonaro was more popular among the college educated, especially in the cities. For instance, Sao Paulo, the largest and wealthiest city in the country, delivered 60 percent of the votes to Bolsonaro. Sao Paulo is a global city with many international businesses and organizations installed—not some kind of nativist region.
> 
> *Final Thoughts*
> 
> Bolsonaro has become the political equivalent of what author Nassim Taleb calls “Antifragile.” The more he is attacked, the stronger he becomes. He reached a point where he was able to benefit from the chaotic electoral environment. Now, he is becoming the 38th president of Brazil and must be evaluated based on his policies. He has a good team of people who believe in freedom, democracy, and the reforms Brazil needs to start growing again. The main concern Brazilians have right now is whether or not he will be able to deliver what he has promised.


This is a great article which breaks down the reasons why Bolsonaro won the 2018 Brazilian election. There are a lot of reasons which have led to this point and have contributed to Bolsonaro's rise to the presidency but from what I have read it can basically be broken down as a giant fuck up from the Socialists in power over the last number of years. 

The biggest reason really seems to be the giant corruption scandal which the ruling party has been riddled with over a long period of time which whilst clearly steps have been taken for it to be addressed and dealt with, the workers party, particularly it's nominee Haddad has failed to own up to. Haddad's insistence that Dilma's impeachment and Lula's conviction were illegitimate really put the nail in the coffin to his campaign it seems. Whether you believe what he is saying is true or not and I have seem some from the left argue that this is the case, it was clear the majority of people were not buying it. I will need to read more into the corruption trials myself but there you have it.

Along with that, a disastrous economy and rising crime seems to be the other main reasons. Which makes sense considering the reports I have seen and read other the last couple of years in Brazil. Though obviously I am far from an expert on Brazilian politics :lol.

The main question I have been asking myself is whether Bolsonaro is legitimately fascist and far right or if he has become another one of the Guardian's pantomine versions of the "far right". Unfortunately there is a legitimate case to be made that he is former though I would say the jury is still out on his governance.

On the surface he appears to be a typical US style Conservative: mostly pro free market (especially in the context of Brazil's current economy), pro-life, pro gun rights, anti-immigration, against same-sex marriage, against heavy environmental regulations etc.

However in the past, Bolsonaro has not only been sympathetic to but has been downright supportive of past Southern American dictatorships including the last one in Brazil which reports suggest he was actually a part of...though I can't confirm that. If we take that at face value, forget him being the Brazilian Donald Trump or even another Duterte, he could be another Pinochet...though honestly that may not even accurate enough either. I need to brush up on my South American dictatorships.

What has given me pause however is that in recent years he has contradicted these views and has stated for example that Brazil needs to stop praising dictatorships and be allies with countries like the United States and South Korea.

http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/pol...s-de-bolsonaro-e-haddad-para-politica-externa



> In the government proposal submitted by the candidate to the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), Bolsonaro speaks in a "new Itamaraty". According to the text, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must be at the service of values ​​that have always been associated with the Brazilian people. The other front, says the program, will be to foster foreign trade with countries that can add economic and technological value to Brazil.
> 
> "We will stop praising murderous dictatorships and despise or even attack important democracies like USA, Israel and Italy. We will no longer make spurious trade agreements or deliver the assets of the Brazilian people to international dictators, "says the document.
> 
> On comparisons made between him and the president of the United States, Bolsonaro answered , in a press conference, on the last day 20: "It's about wanting a big Brazil just like he wants a big America."
> 
> "It [Trump] lowered the tax burden of the manufacturing sector, was criticized, but this has generated employment and attracted new companies from outside. England did this 20 years ago. Do you really admire him [Trump] for that, or do you want me to admire [Nicolás] Maduro [Venezuelan president] or the Cuban government? "Added Bolsonaro.
> 
> At the regional level, the Bolsonaro plan foresees deepening integration "with all the Latin American brothers who are free of dictatorship." "We need to redirect our line of partnerships."


So in a way, this is another Bernie Sanders/Venezuela type situation. Do we believe that Bolsanaro's views have changed since the 90's when he touted praise for military dictatorship or is he simply playing up to what he feels he has to say to get elected? On this I don't know. I don't know enough about the man nor am I a mind reader.

We'll have to see how this plays out, for now I am concerned because of his past quotes and associations to the past Brazilian dictatorship. A leopard doesn't change his spots and all but I'm not going to cry out doom and gloom just yet. Either way, it is fascinating development.....albeit a potentially scary one.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Not only the amount of money. The amount of time spent campaigning in the US is absurd. Politicians spend more time campaigning than actual governing in the US. Most countries have it at most 30 days or so. American campaigns can go up to a year. The money and time is related. The longer the campaign, the more resources is required to run a well organised campaign. Though Trump seem to have smashed that conventional wisdom in 2016. Why run a well organised campaign when you can just use memes that is popular among your base?
> 
> Of course it is very hypocritical for me to bitch too much about the long campaigning as I'm a junkie for all the drama it provides.


Its all in the advertising.

i remember learning about advertising when in radio, and one of the things i learned was that, you never sold on a bad feeling, except one product... insurance.

All insurance commercials were this gloom and doom scenario, then someone came up with the idea of a lizard, and cavemen, and BAM! Geico took off. 

Then all the other companies started doing it.

We live in a copycat world, if people see you are successful doing something, they are going to imitate it.

unfortunately smear campaigns, and slogans are remembered more than issues.

i am still up in the air about Ben jealous and Larry hogan here in MD, because I legit don't know about some key issues, and cant find the answers anywhere.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Washington (CNN) — Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly from Indiana awkwardly touted minority staff members during a debate Tuesday night, seeming to suggest they succeeded despite their race or ethnicity.
> "Our state director is Indian-American, but he does an amazing job," he said. "Our director of all constituent services, she's African-American, but she does an even more incredible job than you can ever imagine."
> Donnelly is one of the Senate's most endangered incumbents. He is facing Republican challenger Mike Braun in next week's midterm election.
> 
> His comment Tuesday night came in the context of a question about diversity.
> "We want everybody to have a chance in Indiana and in America, and my offices reflect that -- both on the campaign side and on the Senate side," he said as he began his answer.
> 
> Democratic Senator @JoeforIndiana (who is up for re-election):
> 
> "...Our state director is Indian-American, but he does an amazing job. Our director for all constituent services, she's African-American, but she does an even more incredible job than you could ever imagine..." pic.twitter.com/WOqP79HIIL
> — Yashar Ali ? (@yashar) October 31, 2018
> 
> After highlighting the two staffers, Donnelly continued: "It isn't their race or their religion, it's the incredible person that they are. But at the same time, they have to have a chance. They have to have an opportunity, and that's my responsibility. And I've done it in every office I've had, and I've done it in every campaign I've had, because my campaigns and our Senate office should reflect the face of Indiana."
> Donnelly's diversity gaffe was reminiscent of Mitt Romney, then the Republican nominee for president, in 2012 awkwardly touting his efforts to hire women by saying he had "binders full of women."
> Republicans highlighted Donnelly's use of the word "but" as clips spread rapidly on social media.
> 
> "Holy cats. Watch this clip. I can't believe how terrible this is," tweeted Josh Holmes, a top political adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
> Democrats, meanwhile, were more agitated by Donnelly suggesting he was open to Trump's calls for an end to birthright citizenship. Responding to the possibility that Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham may introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship, Donnelly said, "We have to look at this legislation."


http://archive.is/FRTQS


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

There's money in politics that we probably don't even know about.

Trump campaigned on the fact that he ran his own show and wouldn't have to do the bidding of any corporate masters, but he's obviously in someone's pocket. 

I feel like he's just another teleprompter president saying and doing things that other people tell him to.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> There's money in politics that we probably don't even know about.
> 
> Trump campaigned on the fact that he ran his own show and wouldn't have to do the bidding of any corporate masters, but he's obviously in someone's pocket.
> 
> I feel like he's just another teleprompter president saying and doing things that other people tell him to.


Trump did pay the vast majority of his funds himself. 

However, he himself is a corporate politician - the first of his kind - so essentially he's Wall Street and big money itself directly in power.

Opensecrets.org is a great source to find who's buying which politician. For example, these are the outside contributors to Trump's campaign (limited to 500k) 










"Progressive Bernie" on the other hand:










Much cleaner slate, but still some mega corporations in there. 

Like I've been saying, there is no "leftist" in America. At most the farthest left an American is willing to go is simply demand or pretend that they're demanding higher levels of social welfare statism.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Thousands of Google employees walked out today. This is karma for the company altering search results for political gain.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Thousands of Google employees walked out today. This is karma for the company altering search results for political gain.
> 
> - Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

http://fortune.com/2018/10/31/steve-king-nrcc-intel-land-o-lakes-purina-support-white-supremacist/



> *Steve King Loses National GOP Support and More Corporate Donors Over Endorsing White Supremacist*
> 
> ays of King’s battle to retain his seat. Scholten first seemed a long shot ,given King’s last election win in 2016 with a 23% lead over his Democratic opponent in a county that Trump took by 27%.
> 
> However, Scholten dramatically outraised King in direct contributions, by $1.7 million to $740,000. Most of King’s expenses have been for family salaries and fundraising expenses, with no TV advertising.
> 
> Scholten also received a notable independent expenditure: A $300,000 ad campaign from a PAC run by former presidential candidate Evan McMullin, a leading “Never Trump” critic. The ad labeled King “Klan & Neo-Nazi approved.” Fellow GOP House member Carlos Curbelo of Florida said on MSNBC on Oct. 31 he wouldn’t cast a vote for King even if it meant losing GOP control of the House.
> 
> King has long tended towards coded expressions of support for white nationalism and supremacy, but stepped up overt statements in this election cycle. This included tying George Soros to a supposed conspiracy popular among the far right that alleges left-wing figures are funding immigration to “replace” white populations.
> 
> In a statement, King expressed affirmation for all “legal immigrants” and “natural born citizens,” regardless of race, ethnicity, or natural origin, and said, “These attacks are orchestrated by nasty, desperate, and dishonest fake news.” King didn’t mention religion.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> https://fee.org/articles/why-bolsonaro-won-brazils-presidency-in-a-landslide/
> 
> 
> 
> This is a great article which breaks down the reasons why Bolsonaro won the 2018 Brazilian election. There are a lot of reasons which have led to this point and have contributed to Bolsonaro's rise to the presidency but from what I have read it can basically be broken down as a giant fuck up from the Socialists in power over the last number of years.
> 
> The biggest reason really seems to be the giant corruption scandal which the ruling party has been riddled with over a long period of time which whilst clearly steps have been taken for it to be addressed and dealt with, the workers party, particularly it's nominee Haddad has failed to own up to. Haddad's insistence that Dilma's impeachment and Lula's conviction were illegitimate really put the nail in the coffin to his campaign it seems. Whether you believe what he is saying is true or not and I have seem some from the left argue that this is the case, it was clear the majority of people were not buying it. I will need to read more into the corruption trials myself but there you have it.
> 
> Along with that, a disastrous economy and rising crime seems to be the other main reasons. Which makes sense considering the reports I have seen and read other the last couple of years in Brazil. Though obviously I am far from an expert on Brazilian politics :lol.
> 
> The main question I have been asking myself is whether Bolsonaro is legitimately fascist and far right or if he has become another one of the Guardian's pantomine versions of the "far right". Unfortunately there is a legitimate case to be made that he is former though I would say the jury is still out on his governance.
> 
> On the surface he appears to be a typical US style Conservative: mostly pro free market (especially in the context of Brazil's current economy), pro-life, pro gun rights, anti-immigration, against same-sex marriage, against heavy environmental regulations etc.
> 
> However in the past, Bolsonaro has not only been sympathetic to but has been downright supportive of past Southern American dictatorships including the last one in Brazil which reports suggest he was actually a part of...though I can't confirm that. If we take that at face value, forget him being the Brazilian Donald Trump or even another Duterte, he could be another Pinochet...though honestly that may not even accurate enough either. I need to brush up on my South American dictatorships.
> 
> What has given me pause however is that in recent years he has contradicted these views and has stated for example that Brazil needs to stop praising dictatorships and be allies with countries like the United States and South Korea.
> 
> http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/pol...s-de-bolsonaro-e-haddad-para-politica-externa
> 
> 
> 
> So in a way, this is another Bernie Sanders/Venezuela type situation. Do we believe that Bolsanaro's views have changed since the 90's when he touted praise for military dictatorship or is he simply playing up to what he feels he has to say to get elected? On this I don't know. I don't know enough about the man nor am I a mind reader.
> 
> We'll have to see how this plays out, for now I am concerned because of his past quotes and associations to the past Brazilian dictatorship. A leopard doesn't change his spots and all but I'm not going to cry out doom and gloom just yet. Either way, it is fascinating development.....albeit a potentially scary one.


Brazilian politics is not something I go out of my way to follow but since I have Glenn Greenwald on my Twitter list, I am relatively well informed on this topic. According to everything I've seen, Bolsanaro is a legit fascist who is more comparable to Duterte than Trump. This is one of those situations where it's not hyperbole to bring out the doom and gloom rhetoric.

ETA:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058000529144668160
You have to admit, that looks shady as fuck.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Its all in the advertising.
> 
> i remember learning about advertising when in radio, and one of the things i learned was that, you never sold on a bad feeling, except one product... insurance.
> 
> All insurance commercials were this gloom and doom scenario, then someone came up with the idea of a lizard, and cavemen, and BAM! Geico took off.
> 
> Then all the other companies started doing it.
> 
> We live in a copycat world, if people see you are successful doing something, they are going to imitate it.
> 
> unfortunately smear campaigns, and slogans are remembered more than issues.
> 
> i am still up in the air about Ben jealous and Larry hogan here in MD, because I legit don't know about some key issues, and cant find the answers anywhere.


Wtf does all these have anything to what I posted? The issue is the first amendment, which is great for what it is, but also allows anyone to campaign in perpetuity with few restrictions.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Brazilian politics is not something I go out of my way to follow but since I have Glenn Greenwald on my Twitter list, I am relatively well informed on this topic. According to everything I've seen, Bolsanaro is a legit fascist who is more comparable to Duterte than Trump. This is one of those situations where it's not hyperbole to bring out the doom and gloom rhetoric.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058000529144668160
> You have to admit, that looks shady as fuck.


I would have to look more into the Lula case. Greenwald is definitely more valid source on this topic than Kyle for example, who in his analysis of the Brazilian election seemed to deny any previous corruption from the worker's party and took the default leftist position whilst Greenwald acknowledged that Brazil for a long time has had corruption problems within it's system. Kyle is more objective than most but I do notice from time to time situations where his bias takes over and he takes the left wing position even when I can clearly see that he is wrong. This is why I think Jimmy Dore is a better source for left wing news even though I obviously disagree with him on half the issues (I love Jimmy regardless). The situation regarding Lula though is an interesting one which I'll have to look into properly and draw my own conclusions.

I think comparing Bolsonaro to Trump is not accurate to be honest from I have seen and is too simplistic to draw from. I have made it clear (or at least have tried to) that there is a strong possibility as far as being fascist that he is the real deal, not a pantomine version of far right which to be honest I would describe Trump as though I don't know if you would agree or not.

I honestly don't know enough about Brazilian politics compared to other countries, other than headline news which I have read I have not delved into the politics within that country much at all compared to the likes of the US, Canada, European countries like France, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Italy etc as well as Venezuela, South Africa etc. So for now I'm taking all the perspectives and information I can find and drawing the best conclusion I can muster. At the moment I lean towards Bolsonaro being the far right fascist that is being reported but forgive me for being a little skeptical when I have seen others being reported as such and it turns out that they are just Conservative or a populist right winger. It's hard to trust media these days.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So what, there aren't a lot of moderates in Brazil? It had to be either the socialist or the fascist? Great country they got there.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> I would have to look more into the Lula case. Greenwald is definitely more valid source on this topic than Kyle for example, who in his analysis of the Brazilian election seemed to deny any previous corruption from the worker's party and took the default leftist position whilst Greenwald acknowledged that Brazil for a long time has had corruption problems within it's system. Kyle is more objective than most but I do notice from time to time situations where his bias takes over and he takes the left wing position even when I can clearly see that he is wrong. This is why I think Jimmy Dore is a better source for left wing news even though I obviously disagree with him on half the issues (I love Jimmy regardless). The situation regarding Lula though is an interesting one which I'll have to look into properly and draw my own conclusions.
> 
> I think comparing Bolsonaro to Trump is not accurate to be honest from I have seen and is too simplistic to draw from. I have made it clear (or at least have tried to) that there is a strong possibility as far as being fascist that he is the real deal, not a pantomine version of far right which to be honest I would describe Trump as though I don't know if you would agree or not.
> 
> I honestly don't know enough about Brazilian politics compared to other countries, other than headline news which I have read I have not delved into the politics within that country much at all compared to the likes of the US, Canada, European countries like France, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Italy etc as well as Venezuela, South Africa etc. So for now I'm taking all the perspectives and information I can find and drawing the best conclusion I can muster. At the moment I lean towards Bolsonaro being the far right fascist that is being reported but forgive me for being a little skeptical when I have seen others being reported as such and it turns out that they are just Conservative or a populist right winger. It's hard to trust media these days.


Agreed on your assessment of Jimmy vs Kyle.

Greenwald has long been criticizing the comparison of Trump and Bolsanaro. Trump and the GOP in general have been trending towards fascism for a long time now but they haven't come close to reaching Bolsanaro levels yet. He also pointed out the thing you commented on, that so many people call right wingers fascist these days, it's like the boy who cried wolf, so when the real deal comes along, people are more skeptical of it until it's too late.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Agreed on your assessment of Jimmy vs Kyle.
> 
> Greenwald has long been criticizing the comparison of Trump and Bolsanaro. Trump and the GOP in general have been trending towards fascism for a long time now but they haven't come close to reaching Bolsanaro levels yet. He also pointed out the thing you commented on, that so many people call right wingers fascist these days, *it's like the boy who cried wolf, so when the real deal comes along, people are more skeptical of it until it's too late.*


I bolded the last part because it's incredibly true. I've seen articles calling the likes of Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro etc far right. It's fucking infuriating :lol. Even if you disagree with some or all of those people it's not true. I'd argue it's the same for UKIP, Nigel Farage, the Swedish Democrats and yes even Trump. That's probably the only disagreement we will have. I'm not a Trump supporter but he's not far right. There are too many instances where being anti-immigration and/or anti-Islam is considered far right. I don't buy that narrative and never have. There's levels to this, someone like Geert Wilders who suggested banning the Quaran and the building of Mosques? Perhaps. Criticizing fundamentalist ultra conservative Islam because of the dangers it presents to western values and culture? Absolutely not. I'm sorry, but some cultures are better than others. Islamic culture is backwards and is not compatible with the modern world.

I'm more than happy to jump on condemning Bolsonaro if I feel the evidence justifies itself. But if I am willing to give Bernie the benefit of the doubt based off of quotes from 20 years ago, I have to be consistent and do the same for Bolsonaro until I am proved otherwise.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Wtf does all these have anything to what I posted? The issue is the first amendment, which is great for what it is, but also allows anyone to campaign in perpetuity with few restrictions.


Well, ok then... umm strange

I was just saying how people and companies use buzzwords, like your point right here:



> Why run a well organised campaign when you can just use memes that is popular among your base?


I thought it was a good point and expanded on that. If it bothered you, then whatever... but I interjected my two cents


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> I bolded the last part because it's incredibly true. I've seen articles calling the likes of Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro etc far right. It's fucking infuriating :lol. Even if you disagree with some or all of those people it's not true. I'd argue it's the same for UKIP, Nigel Farage, the Swedish Democrats and yes even Trump. That's probably the only disagreement we will have. I'm not a Trump supporter but he's not far right. There are too many instances where being anti-immigration and/or anti-Islam is considered far right. I don't buy that narrative and never have. There's levels to this, someone like Geert Wilders who suggested banning the Quaran and the building of Mosques? Perhaps. Criticizing fundamentalist ultra conservative Islam because of the dangers it presents to western values and culture? Absolutely not. I'm sorry, but some cultures are better than others. Islamic culture is backwards and is not compatible with the modern world.


A lot of those people are definitely far right but to be a full blown fascist, they'd have to be more authoritarian as well. Fascist-leaning, to be sure, but not all the way there yet.



> I'm more than happy to jump on condemning Bolsonaro if I feel the evidence justifies itself. But if I am willing to give Bernie the benefit of the doubt based off of quotes from 20 years ago, I have to be consistent and do the same for Bolsonaro until I am proved otherwise.


What you giving Bernie the benefit of the doubt on?

Bolsonaro said he'd rather have a dead son than a gay son. He's in favor of dictatorships. Capitalist corporations around the world are already licking their chops at the chance to destroy even more of the Amazon. At one point, he said that if he lost the election, he wouldn't recognize the results and the military should overthrow the government and install him anyways. He's spent 30 years in politics, used corruption to get elected and then elevated the other corrupt politicians who helped get him there. He is pro torture and murder of dissidents. He plans to rob the country blind and sell off all it's resources to the highest foreign bidder. He said ugly women don't deserve to be raped. I could keep going...

I mean, the guy is a textbook definition of a fascist. Greenwald has covered all of this extensively. A lot of what I'm saying is paraphrasing his coverage. Just read through his TL for a better idea of just how bad Bolsonaro really is.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





I actually hope she wins


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> I would have to look more into the Lula case. Greenwald is definitely more valid source on this topic than Kyle for example, who in his analysis of the Brazilian election seemed to deny any previous corruption from the worker's party and took the default leftist position whilst Greenwald acknowledged that Brazil for a long time has had corruption problems within it's system. Kyle is more objective than most but I do notice from time to time situations where his bias takes over and he takes the left wing position even when I can clearly see that he is wrong. This is why I think Jimmy Dore is a better source for left wing news even though I obviously disagree with him on half the issues (I love Jimmy regardless). The situation regarding Lula though is an interesting one which I'll have to look into properly and draw my own conclusions.
> 
> I think comparing Bolsonaro to Trump is not accurate to be honest from I have seen and is too simplistic to draw from. I have made it clear (or at least have tried to) that there is a strong possibility as far as being fascist that he is the real deal, not a pantomine version of far right which to be honest I would describe Trump as though I don't know if you would agree or not.
> 
> I honestly don't know enough about Brazilian politics compared to other countries, other than headline news which I have read I have not delved into the politics within that country much at all compared to the likes of the US, Canada, European countries like France, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Italy etc as well as Venezuela, South Africa etc. So for now I'm taking all the perspectives and information I can find and drawing the best conclusion I can muster. At the moment I lean towards Bolsonaro being the far right fascist that is being reported but forgive me for being a little skeptical when I have seen others being reported as such and it turns out that they are just Conservative or a populist right winger. It's hard to trust media these days.


Kyle's Video on Monsanto (An awful company granted) was utter garbage, it was like watching something from a vaccine denier.

As I've said before I like Kyle, but he does rush some of his videos and just takes the default left position.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46067959



> Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told the US he considered murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi to be a dangerous Islamist, media reports say.


hillip2

Saudi Arabia are now concerned about Islamist extremists. (Hint: He wasn't one though)


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> He said ugly women don't deserve to be raped. I could keep going...


Are you saying ugly women do deserve to be raped? :woah


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Are you saying ugly women do deserve to be raped? :woah


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Just a quick question. I caught a segment on Fox News (I was a the gym and they have these huge TV, so it pretty easy to see them) and they asked if Hollywood involvement in politics turns off the Middle and Working Class. 

What are you're thoughts?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Just a quick question. I caught a segment on Fox News (I was a the gym and they have these huge TV, so it pretty easy to see them) and they asked if Hollywood involvement in politics turns off the Middle and Working Class.
> 
> What are you're thoughts?


For the most part I think it does for people who actually process the issues during elections and vote based on something they want changed. They view Hollywood types as shills because let's be honest, they are. They lie for a living and given enough money will promote anything. So their endorsements come off as bought and disingenuous.

The ones that like Hollywood types shilling are the people who like their ears tickled and like to have what they believed regurgitated over and over so they feel some sense of validation because they have no ability to think for themselves.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Just a quick question. I caught a segment on Fox News (I was a the gym and they have these huge TV, so it pretty easy to see them) and they asked if Hollywood involvement in politics turns off the Middle and Working Class.
> 
> What are you're thoughts?


Celebs endorsing candidates without substance is not good in any way but there are some who actually work on specific issues and those do not bother me so much. I mean, if they care enough to put feet on the ground and try to improve a situation instead of just showing up for a photo op, I don't think that turns people off.


----------



## JediScum

*2018 election predictions?*

The way I see it going, I say the Republicans will keep the Senate, but lose the House. Just my speculation given how the election map is looking right now.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: 2018 election predictions?*

GOP picks up 3 seats in the Senate

Democrats pick up however many seats in the House it would take to give them a 5-10 seat majority


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I think Jimmy Dore is right about Alex Jones. This is all an act. He's a performance artist.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058442443677450241


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

One of Kavanaugh's accusers admits she made up her story because she was angry and "just wanted to get attention".

https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...s-spokane-sheriff-refers-his-writings-to-fbi/

What a sexist manifesto. Why are only non-Christian males being targeted?


----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...s-spokane-sheriff-refers-his-writings-to-fbi/
> 
> What a sexist manifesto. Why are only non-Christian males being targeted?


Ah so his detractors are communists or Muslims, might as well use the normal right wing tactic.

The guys using the old Testament to justify stuff, he's an idiot.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> One of Kavanaugh's accusers admits she made up her story because she was angry and "just wanted to get attention".
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11


There is a reason why no one knew who this person is, because no one believed the claim. Is this the same person the GOP put out there before so they could say SEE someone lied.

Also, this still does not mean he didn't sexually assault Ford or the other two women.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://globalnews.ca/news/4626570/georgia-voter-suppression/



> *U.S. courts rule against Georgia, allow 3,000 naturalized U.S. citizens to vote in midterms*
> 
> Two federal courts on Friday issued rulings that order Georgia to allow some 3,000 naturalized U.S. citizens to vote in elections next week and prevent the state from throwing out some absentee ballots.
> 
> The rulings are a rebuke to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, whose office oversees the voter rolls and who is the Republican candidate in the state’s hotly contested gubernatorial race.
> 
> The issue of voter suppression has been central to the governor’s race in Georgia, where Kemp is facing Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams, who is seeking to become the country’s first female, black governor.
> 
> U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross in Atlanta issued the order to allow some 3,000 recently naturalized U.S. citizens to vote after their registrations were put on hold.
> 
> Civil rights groups sued Kemp in October over 50,000 voting registration applications placed on hold due to Georgia’s “exact-match” law, requiring that personal information on voter applications match what is on state databases.
> 
> Ross’ ruling allows the naturalized citizens to vote in Tuesday’s midterm election if they present proof of citizenship at the polls.
> 
> In the case on absentee ballots, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected Kemp’s request to stay a lower court’s ruling blocking election officials from throwing out absentee ballots for a supposed signature mismatch, without giving voters an opportunity to contest that and confirm their identity.
> 
> *‘Inappropriate to change’*
> 
> Kemp’s spokesman, Candice Broce, called the ruling about naturalized citizens a “minor change,” while criticizing the decision on absentee ballots.
> 
> “Despite this outcome, our concern remains that it is inappropriate to change long-standing procedures this close to an election,” Broce said in a statement on the decision on absentee ballots. “Nonetheless, the state and counties will comply with” the ruling.
> 
> Civil rights groups celebrated the ruling on naturalized citizens as a major victory.
> 
> “With respect to Tuesday’s election, we deem this a total victory in our fight against Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s exact-match scheme,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
> 
> The ruling on absentee ballots stems from a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and others against Kemp and county registrars. A District Court judge granted the temporary restraining order last week, prompting the state to appeal the decision.
> 
> “Once again, a court has blocked Georgia’s attempt to obstruct voters,” said Sophia Lakin, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “This ruling is a huge victory as we round the final turn to the midterms.”


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

On this day in 1998, Jesse Ventura was elected the 38th Governor of Minnesota.






- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





CNN needs to go away


----------



## JediScum

Vic Capri said:


> On this day in 1998, Jesse Ventura was elected the 38th Governor of Minnesota.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


 Back when he wasn’t delusional.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> CNN needs to go away


The article is weird, because it doesn't even link in to the mid terms, its basically just arguing women shouldn't fuck just because their husbands/partners want to. Its a bullshit article with a clickbait thread.

That being said though, the guy in the video used Sodom and Gomorrah as some kind of early form of innocent until proven guilty >< WTF. The comments sections is basically the worst I've seen for a while.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Proposition C, a bill to fight homelessness with a new business tax, slid into San Francisco’s DMs in the middle of the night, politically speaking.
> 
> What happened was, in December of last year, San Francisco mayor Ed Lee died unexpectedly. Over the next seven months, the city lived through two mayors and a nail-biting election that dragged on for a week after voting. The Coalition for Homelessness took advantage of the chaos by gathering enough signatures to qualify a ballot initiative to tax local businesses and use the money to help the 7,500 people sleeping on the city’s streets.
> 
> Even then, the idea might have remained an underdog, underfunded ballot initiative—until Marc Benioff got involved. The founder and co-CEO of Salesforce—San Francisco’s largest private employer, main tenant and naming rightsholder of the tallest skyscraper in the city (and the adjacent marquee transportation terminal)—started dropping millions of dollars in support of Prop C. Benioff called out his fellow billionaires, by name, on social media and in public appearances—and they responded defensively. Today you can dimly make out their grappling silhouettes looming, kaiju-like, over the financial-district skyline, where the oligarchs’ proxy fight over San Francisco’s greatest shame now threatens to dispel some of the foundational illusions of the way-new economy.
> Tax on Gross Receipts
> 
> First, though, you have to get over the weirdness of a billionaire spending millions to tax billionaires. Prop C would tax the gross receipts of businesses with administrative offices in San Francisco and more than $50 million in revenue, at a rate ranging from 0.175 percent to 0.69 percent. Over $1 billion in gross revenue, it taxes payroll instead, at 1.5 percent. That’s confusing (more on the revenue-versus-payroll thing in a moment). Still, most people don’t like to pay taxes, and in this the rich are even more like you and me than you and me. Usually. “There is a kind of hypnosis that goes around, that businesses should not support taxes,” Benioff says. “The reality is, unbridled capitalism is not good for anybody, including all the companies benefitting from it. We want society to be successful. We are connected to it, not apart from it.”
> 
> Sounds unobjectionable, right? In fact, no one will go on the record saying “Screw homeless people, I don’t want to pay any taxes.” But several of the city’s prominent elected officials—all touting solid liberal credentials—oppose Prop C. They include mayor London Breed and state senator Scott Wiener, who has historically supported more resources to attack homelessness, and last year sponsored a sweeping bill that would’ve boosted housing construction in the extraordinarily expensive state. “I really struggled with this,” Wiener says. “But this measure was vetted only within the homeless advocacy community and then placed on the ballot. If we’re going to to move forward with a tax increase larger than any we have proposed before, this is not the way to do it.”
> 
> Plus, Wiener says, city leadership recognizes the problem. It’s hard to miss. San Francisco has turned into a Brechtian horrorshow where dudes in hoodies wearing tech-company-emblazoned backpacks ride shared electric scooters past garbage-strewn tent encampments. It’s got a real dystopian vibe. But the mayor is on it! “They didn’t even give our new mayor an opportunity to set an agenda as the leader of our city,” Wiener says, claiming Breed is seeking “new, aggressive approaches to homelessness.”
> 
> To the extent you’re in the market for rationales, that one is buyable. It’s the one that Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter and the online payments company Square, made, too. “I want to fix the homelessness problem,” Dorsey tweeted on October 12. “Mayor Breed was elected to fix this. I trust her.”
> 
> Benioff, who’d donated several hundred thousand dollars in support of Prop C just a few days earlier, shot back: “Which homeless programs in our city are you supporting? Can you tell me what Twitter and Square & you are in for & at what financial levels?”
> 
> “Marc: you’re distracting,” Dorsey replied. “I support the Mayor, and I’m committed to helping her.”
> 
> Over all, Benioff has donated $2.5 million to the Yes side, and has been an active campaigner—at WIRED’s 25th anniversary conference, in a New York Times op-ed, in interviews. He points out that Twitter received a sweetheart tax deal to locate its headquarters downtown, and that in his role as a philanthropist he knows exactly who donates money and who does not. “These companies made it in San Francisco, on the backs of the people of San Francisco,” he says. “The companies that have given the least are the ones who are opposing this the most.”
> Unfair Burden?
> 
> So, great. Hot billionaire-on-billionaire action, with city government caught in the middle, and thousands of unhoused people in the middle of the middle. Except then Dorsey shifted the narrative a little, saying in a tweet that he was primarily opposed to the way the tax would be levied. “We are not opposed to a tax increase—we are opposed to a tax increase that results in Square potentially paying twice as much more than Salesforce, which is four times larger than Square,” a Square spokesperson says. “Jack is focused on working with the mayor to help solve this crisis. He’s not running a personal PR campaign.” Stripe and Visa, which also contributed to the No on C campaign, did not return requests for comment.
> 
> What Dorsey meant was, taxing companies based on gross revenues without regard to profits and expenses was unfair. And that’s actually more interesting, because it goes to the heart of how Silicon Valley and venture-capital-funded technology businesses work. Stripe and Square attract high valuations even as low-margin, high-expense businesses because they have investors willing to float them for long periods of time. Those companies were fine with that business model when it made them richer. Now that that model may hurt them, they say the proposed tax is unfair. If you think of the free market as the crucible in which a company must be forged or melt away, then these companies start to look like they’re trying to pull off a Kobayashi Maru—to change the conditions of the test so it’s possible to win.
> 
> It’s true, as some finance folks argue, that gross revenue is a terrible way to decide what a company’s societal vig ought to be. “It doesn’t take expenses into account, of course,” says Brett Trueman, an accounting professor at UCLA. “And companies that are just starting out, in some cases they want to boost their revenues because they don’t have a lot of profits, or have negative profits. They want to show they have potential.”
> 
> San Francisco has an existing gross revenue tax, itself a compromise with the business community that replaced a payroll tax earlier this decade. Wiener was on the city board of supervisors at the time, and says officials worked hard to craft a tax based roughly on companies’ ability to pay. But he says Prop C would upset that balance by doubling the tax rates.
> 
> Dorsey’s complaints on behalf of financial services startups, so-called fintech companies, are probably based at least in part on the fact that Square argues its gross revenues aren’t a good metric for its health, because it has to pay service fees to all the pesky credit card companies and banks it works with. Accountants would call those “expenses.”
> A Battle in Seattle
> 
> The tension is evident elsewhere, in slightly different form. In May, Seattle’s City Council voted unanimously to pass a payroll tax that would have cost the city’s largest employer, Amazon, $22.5 million a year. Amazon pushed back, threatening to stop construction of a new office building. “What we saw happen was a really effective and coordinated campaign to flip the public narrative,” says Katie Wilson, who helped lead Housing for All, a coalition supporting the Seattle tax hike.
> 
> Solving homelessness is not a mystery. A proven model called “housing first,” pioneered in Seattle, has shown that challenges like substance abuse or job training are best tackled by giving people a safe and stable place to live. However, Amazon and other opponents successfully tapped into legitimate frustration with the lack of progress on homelessness to shift political debate away from taxes and funding a solution.
> 
> Instead, opponents blamed Seattle city officials for spending their budget poorly, arguing that the government is taxing you and giving it to some shiftless drug addicts who don’t even want to come inside, exploiting economic tensions, much the same way Republicans have exploited the racial divide, Wilson says.
> 
> Seattle isn’t alone here. Cupertino—home of Apple—threatened a payroll tax this past spring. By summer, Apple had successfully lobbied to have the tax taken off the table.
> 
> And in November, voters in Mountain View—home to Google—will have the option of taxing a tech giant based on head count to fund efforts to help the homeless in an area where the rates of youth and family homelessness are rising. Google, which would have to pay an estimated $3.2 million a year, is not opposing Mountain View’s proposed tax.
> 
> In the midst of a national tech backlash, why are the fiercest fights over taxing big tech at the city level? Because there are no other options. “It’s pretty widely accepted that both Google and Amazon are chronic tax avoiders. It’s been well documented that Google has shifted billions of dollars of profits out of developed nations and into tax havens,” says Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
> 
> That’s particularly true in California, where a 1970s-era law called Proposition 13 strictly limits the property taxes on which local governments typically rely. There might be argument for changing or repealing Prop 13, but after 40 years, it’s sacrosanct. “Those things are less popular with housing-secure homeowners who dominate elections,” says Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action, a nonprofit that advocates for more housing.
> 
> Usually, that leaves San Francisco in the uncomfortable position of relying on rich people’s philanthropy to solve its biggest problems. That’s what makes Benioff’s support for Prop C so noteworthy. Sure, he may be supporting a tax that hurts Salesforce less than Square, but he’s backing a structural solution that would rely on, can you believe it, taxes. And that’s what billionaires are really fighting about: not homelessness, not gross receipts versus profits, but their ability to keep writing their own rules.


https://www.wired.com/story/san-francisco-tech-billionaires-war-over-homelessness/


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> NOBLESVILLE, Ind. — Indiana Republicans canceled an appearance by National Rifle Association President Oliver North hours before he was set to speak at a GOP rally miles from where a 13-year-old boy allegedly shot a classmate and a teacher last May.
> 
> The Indianapolis Star reports the Indiana Republican Party initially said a scheduling conflict forced North out of Sunday’s Noblesville rally featuring Republican Senate candidate Mike Braun and other GOP candidates.
> 
> But GOP Chairman Kyle Hupfer later said North was dropped because it would have been “the wrong place and wrong time.”
> 
> The venue for Sunday’s suburban Indianapolis rally is miles from where a student opened fire May 25 inside Noblesville West Middle School.
> 
> The suspect is scheduled to appear in court Monday to make the juvenile court equivalent of a guilty plea.


https://fox59.com/2018/11/04/gop-drops-nra-president-from-rally-in-noblesville/


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> *Kemp's office launches probe of Georgia Democratic Party ahead of historic election*
> 
> (CNN) Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp set off a political firestorm when his office, two days before an election in which he is a candidate, announced on Sunday morning that it had opened an investigation into the Georgia Democratic Party in connection with what it described as an attempted hack of the state's voter registration system.
> 
> *But that initial advisory lacked key details about how Kemp's office was made aware of potential security vulnerabilities in the state's electronic voter information page, which the secretary of state oversees. A series of email chains obtained by CNN indicate that, rather than taking part in any alleged "hack," the Georgia Democrats had simply passed along information regarding security concerns from a concerned voter to a private cybersecurity firm, which in turn shared its concerns with Kemp's office.*
> 
> Democrats in the state have vehemently denied the allegations from Kemp's office, which also raised fresh criticism of Kemp's dual role as both the Republican nominee for governor and the state's chief election official.
> 
> "It's wrong to call it an investigation," Democratic gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams told CNN on Monday. "It's a witch hunt that was created by someone who is abusing his power."
> 
> Kemp will face off against Abrams on Tuesday in the state's high-profile and close race for governor. Democrats and advocacy groups have previously argued that Kemp has a conflict of interest in overseeing an election he is also running in, and some have called on him to resign.
> 
> *The latest controversy began with an early morning announcement from Kemp's office claiming there had been a "failed attempt to hack the state's voter registration system" and that the secretary of state's office has opened an investigation "into the Democratic Party of Georgia on the evening of Saturday, November 3, 2018."
> 
> The bulletin provided no evidence for the claims.
> 
> Later Sunday, however, CNN obtained a series of emails the Secretary of State's office said led it to level the accusations of hacking into its voter registration system by the Georgia Democratic Party. The emails refer to findings by a voter who said he had discovered potential vulnerabilities in the state's voter information page and its online registration system.
> 
> That voter, Richard Wright, took his concerns to the Georgia Democratic Party's voter protection hotline to alert authorities, according to his lawyer, David Cross. Cross told CNN Wright is not affiliated with any political party and does not want to speak to any media right now. He also said that Wright has some software background, but is not a hacker.
> 
> According to Cross, Wright -- the voter whose findings prompted accusations of attempted hacking -- was looking up his own registration information on the state's My Voter Page when he discovered he could access other people's information too. The system, he found, doesn't verify who's making the query and, for that reason, it appeared to him that voters' private information could be accessed and that voter registrations could even be edited by anyone on the site.
> 
> Wright went over his concerns with Cross, who has battled with Kemp over similar issues before, including a 2016 lawsuit that alleged cyber security vulnerabilities in Georgia's voting system, at 3 p.m. on Friday. Unclear on the implications of what Wright had found, Cross brought in a cyber security firm to look at the website. While that firm couldn't verify the vulnerability either, they too saw a potential for concern, Cross told CNN.
> 
> "If Richard Wright had never contacted the Democratic Party on Saturday morning," his lawyer, David Cross, told CNN, "no one would be talking about the Democratic Party. It's only because Wright alerted them that Kemp draws it back to them."*
> 
> Candice Broce, the spokeswoman for the Secretary of State's office told CNN on Sunday night that there were no vulnerabilities in the system, said the system is secure and that representatives from Kemp's office were meeting on Monday with authorities of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, FBI and Department of Homeland Security. The federal agencies, she said earlier, had been immediately alerted of her office's concerns.
> 
> "The State of Georgia has notified us of this issue. We defer to the State for further details," a DHS official said in a statement to CNN. The FBI declined to comment.
> 
> Abrams told CNN on Sunday night that she believed Kemp had lied to voters over the seriousness of what had been discovered.
> 
> "Brian Kemp once again is trying to cover up for his failures in cybersecurity by blaming someone else," she said. "We have nothing to do with this and I'm sad that instead of owning up to his responsibility, he's once again misleading Georgia."
> 
> Her remarks echoed what the state party had said earlier in the day, when it called the allegations "another example of abuse of power" by Kemp.
> 
> "This political stunt from Kemp just days before the election is yet another example of why he cannot be trusted and should not be overseeing an election in which he is also a candidate for governor," the state party's executive director, Rebecca DeHart, said in a statement.
> 
> In the emails obtained by CNN, there is an exchange between a volunteer in the party's voter protection program and its director in which they refer to findings by a voter -- Wright -- who said he had discovered potential vulnerabilities in the state's voter information page and its online registration system.
> 
> The emails refer to an attachment that Kemp's office said was computer programming code. Kemp's office received the chain of emails from a representative of a cybersecurity expert who the Georgia Democratic Party asked to evaluate the potential vulnerabilities. The expert noted the computer programming code was possibly tantamount to "a massive vulnerability."
> 
> CNN has not viewed the code.
> 
> As his office's accusations began to circulate, Kemp's campaign lashed out at Democrats for "trying to expose vulnerabilities in Georgia's voter registration system."
> 
> Before the details of how Kemp's office became aware of the specific concerns were made public, Abrams, the state's former House minority leader, told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday morning that any investigation now was an attempt to distract voters two days before the election.
> 
> "I've heard nothing about it, and my reaction would be that this is a desperate attempt on the part of my opponent to distract people from the fact that two different federal judges found him derelict in his duties and have forced him to accept absentee ballots to be counted and those who are being held captive by the exact match system to be allowed to vote," Abrams said Sunday on "State of the Union."
> 
> "He is desperate to turn the conversation away from his failures, from his refusal to honor his commitments and from the fact that he's part of a nationwide system of voter suppression that will not work in this election because we're going to outwork him, we're going to out vote him and we're going to win," she said.
> 
> Democrats and advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have accused Kemp of using his position to suppress the minority vote through purges of the voting rolls and what they have described as an overzealous enforcement of already strict laws.
> 
> A federal court issued an injunction barring the state from rejecting absentee ballots whose signatures don't directly match those on voters' registration. An appeals court declined Kemp's request to end the injunction late last week.
> Kemp has denied those allegations and, when asked during a debate last month, said he would not recuse himself in case of a recount. Recent polling finds the candidates in a dead heat. If neither wins an outright majority, there will be a runoff on December 4.
> 
> Concerns over Georgia voters' information security are not new. Kemp has been accused in a federal lawsuit of failing to safeguard his state's voting system as secretary of state and allowing a massive breach in 2015 that exposed 6 million registered Georgia voters' records and other sensitive election information.
> 
> Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance and a plaintiff in the suit, said in August that it remained unclear if Georgia's election system was infected with malware or potentially breached by foreign hackers.
> 
> The coalition's lawsuit sought to force the state to implement paper ballot-based voting so results could be audited. Georgia is one of only a handful of states that currently use voting machines statewide without paper trails.
> 
> Kemp responded by assuring that Georgia's voting equipment "remains accurate and secure" and that the "hysteria" behind pressuring Georgia to switch to a paper ballot system is based on "misinformation."


So basically a private citizen found a massive hole in the state's election software and when the SOS's office was informed about it he started crying like a bitch that Democrats were hacking them to cover how fucking inept his office has been.

This is the same SOS office that "accidentally" wiped the 2016 election servers days after a judge issued a subpoena for them.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

LET'S GO BETO LET'S GO

:mark:

inb4 I'm :brady6 tomorrow night


Early voting was madness here in Austin. I've never seen it like this even with Obama.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> So basically a private citizen found a massive hole in the state's election software and when the SOS's office was informed about it he started crying like a bitch that Democrats were hacking them to cover how fucking inept his office has been.
> 
> This is the same SOS office that "accidentally" wiped the 2016 election servers days after a judge issued a subpoena for them.


And Kemp is the same guy trying to rig his own election by trying to throw out half a million ballots.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And Kemp is the same guy trying to rig his own election by trying to throw out half a million ballots.


And was behind possibly the largest purge of registered voters ever.

And said this at a recent private campaign rally.



> Not long after Kemp began his remarks, the candidate expressed worry about early voting and “the literally tens of millions of dollars that they [the Abrams camp] are putting behind the get-out-the-vote effort to their base.”
> 
> Kemp then asserted that much of that Abrams effort is focused on absentee ballot requests. “They have just an unprecedented number of that,” he said, “which is something that continues to concern us, especially if everybody uses and exercises their right to vote — which they absolutely can — and mail those ballots in, we gotta have heavy turnout to offset that.”


So he's worried that if everyone that can vote does, he'll lose... and he's in charge of who can vote.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Everyone go vote tomorrow!


----------



## Headliner

MrMister said:


> LET'S GO BETO LET'S GO
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/GkHkVKq.gif?1" border="0" alt="" title=":mark:" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> inb4 I'm <img src="http://i.imgur.com/7hGJtCx.png" border="0" alt="" title="BRADY" class="inlineimg" /> tomorrow night
> 
> 
> Early voting was madness here in Austin. I've never seen it like this even with Obama.


For a while I thought Beto would win, but then I realized its Texas so he'll lose. It feels like he has Bernie Sanders momentum that doesn't translate into a win. 

I'll do a few cartwheels if he wins though. Ted Cruz is unbearable and WOAT.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And Kemp is the same guy trying to rig his own election by trying to throw out half a million ballots.


And the Democrats are trying to gain illegal votes :lol

*Texas Dems ask noncitizens to register to vote, send applications with citizenship box pre-checked*
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/18/texas-democrats-ask-noncitizens-register-vote/


But hey, it doesn't count when its team blue amirite?


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Only reason to vote for me: we have a ballot initiative for term limits. 

Better pass or it just proves most people are stupid. 

Guess while I’m there I can give the Libertarians a fourh vote instead of letting them languish at three.


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> But hey, it doesn't count when its team blue amirite?


Nice strawman you built there, who said it doesn't count?


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

All I hope is that everybody here will vote, but do so with the knowledge of who and why you're voting for said person.

The idea of blanket party voting is stupid and anybody who does that shouldn't be voting in the first place, but sadly a ridiculous amount of people do this.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Dr. Middy said:


> All I hope is that everybody here will vote, but do so with the knowledge of who and why you're voting for said person.
> 
> The idea of blanket party voting is stupid and anybody who does that shouldn't be voting in the first place, but sadly a ridiculous amount of people do this.


Being in a smaller district, we have a lot of weird options to the point blanket boting isn’t possible. Three positions here have no democrat option, one with no republican and a few no libertarian. Means I have to research, evil bastards.

Actually, find it refreshing Illinois has a few decent democrat and republican choices at local levels. Too bad we can’t get them at the higher levels.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

If the Dem's don't take the house then I'd be embarrassed for them because looking at the metrics right now they should. Republicans have a big uphill battle to keep the house but could actually gain on the Senate depending on how the swing seats go.

The media keep talking about how much of a disaster it would be if Trump lost the house but I think a lot people know it's definitely possible and quite likely. The sitting president at some stage does take a hit usually as far as the chambers go. Obama overall lost a shit tonne of seats and both chambers so it's nothing new at all.

It would be a failure on the part of the Dem's if they don't take the House, THAT would be a disaster for team blue.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Booming economy after Obama's regulations removed.
> 
> Record stock market.
> 
> Stronger military.
> 
> Peace meeting with North Korea.
> 
> Higher 401ks.
> 
> More money in your pocket thanks to tax cuts.
> 
> $700 Obamacare fine removed.
> 
> Travel ban enacted.
> 
> The Wall is getting built.
> 
> NAFTA replaced.
> 
> ISIS decimated.
> 
> Unemployment drops to lowest level since 1969.
> 
> Jumpstarted NASA.
> 
> U.S. embassy moved to Jerusalem.
> 
> MS-13 gang members deported.
> 
> Liberal media and Hollywood cesspool exposed.


That all goes away if the Democrats regain power.

*#KeepAmericaGreat*

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

2 years of the Dems obstructing in the House will go a long way towards Trump's re-election.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> For a while I thought Beto would win, but then I realized its Texas so he'll lose. It feels like he has Bernie Sanders momentum that doesn't translate into a win.
> 
> I'll do a few cartwheels if he wins though. Ted Cruz is unbearable and WOAT.


I never thought Beto would win but I've been anti-Cruz since he ran and won in 2012. Agreed he's woat. 

but the mass of people I saw and the line I waited in could point to this being pretty close even if Lyin' Ted wins.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Damn, the results start coming out midnight in the UK Wednesday  Guess I'll wait for the morning.

I'm not making any predictions, but the Democrats not taking this will be a bit of a disaster for them, whereas the other way Trump is going to get a healthy boost to his 2020 election with all the blocking the Democrats will do.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

There is no outcome tomorrow that will lead to any significant improvement of the lives of ordinary Americans. I'll most likely grab some popcorn and try to dodge the shrapnel.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






edit: :lol this vid is a year old. popped up on my feed and thought it was something recent. disregard. or not, b/c bernie's still the best politician in the country.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> I never thought Beto would win but I've been anti-Cruz since he ran and won in 2012. Agreed he's woat.
> 
> but the mass of people I saw and the line I waited in could point to this being pretty close even if Lyin' Ted wins.


With all the cheating going on in TX with some ballots switch to Cruz, Cruz will probably win by fuckery.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Cruz is awful but Beto comes off as a phony. He just screams out of state funded puppet.

Can we get someone that isn't either corrupt or a backwards stooge?



birthday_massacre said:


> With all the cheating going on in TX with some ballots switch to Cruz, Cruz will probably win by fuckery.


Lots of cheating I'd imagine.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/18/texas-democrats-ask-noncitizens-register-vote/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Cruz is awful but Beto comes off as a phony. He just screams out of state funded puppet.
> 
> Can we get someone that isn't either corrupt or a backwards stooge?
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of cheating I'd imagine.
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/18/texas-democrats-ask-noncitizens-register-vote/


Where was the evidence of this? Weird how it just died off right after the claim. Did any legit news source ever pick this up?


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Just voted and wrote in a bunch of people. Fuck the Republicans and the Democrats. 

The only party candidate I voted for was Gov. Larry Hogan, mainly because he's actually been doing a good job in this state.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> With all the cheating going on in TX with some ballots switch to Cruz, Cruz will probably win by fuckery.


There's also gerryjonesmandering to consider too. GOP has the advantage there as well. It's not as pronounced for senator though fortunately.

Really I just wanted to say gerryjonesmandering with this post. :max


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

When republicans win, it'll be thanks to Putin and voter suppression

When democrats win, it'll be because of illegals voting. 

When realistically no matter who wins, everybody loses. 

So meh. 

But go and vote anyways.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Nice strawman you built there, who said it doesn't count?


I'm pointing out how "outraged" he is when the other team cheats but conveniently go quiet or side step it when their team does it. Just the other week BM stated it was a "myth" that the Democrats try to cheat. Just after I posted that, he not only refused to condemn the potential allegations but was trying to suggest it was a false accusation and wanted more evidence which is ironic to me. If this were the Republicans he'd jump to accuse them of being cheaters and would believe it no matter what. We see this all the time, just as recently with his thoughts on the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. He bought into them because he is a Republican and wanted him to burn.

It's the refusal to call out his team that's annoying and the only reason he called out the Democrats over 2016 primary corruption was purely because he is a Bernie supporter .


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice strawman you built there, who said it doesn't count?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out how "outraged" he is when the other team cheats but conveniently go quiet or side step it when their team does it. Just the other week BM stated it was a "myth" that the Democrats try to cheat. Just after I posted that, he not only refused to condemn the potential allegations but was trying to suggest it was a false accusation and wanted more evidence which is ironic to me. If this were the Republicans he'd jump to accuse them of being cheaters and would believe it no matter what. We see this all the time, just as recently with his thoughts on the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. He bought into them because he is a Republican and wanted him to burn.
> 
> It's the refusal to call out his team that's annoying and the only reason he called out the Democrats over 2016 primary corruption was purely because he is a Bernie supporter .
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that can be irritating. There's no doubt that there'll be messing about on both sides.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> When republicans win, it'll be thanks to Putin and voter suppression
> 
> When democrats win, it'll be because of illegals voting.
> 
> When realistically no matter who wins, everybody loses.
> 
> So meh.
> 
> But go and vote anyways.


But illegals don't vote that is a fact and it's also a fact the GOP is using voter suppression. Remember that council Trump put together to show how 3 million illegals voted> yeah it got disbanded because it was a lie and there was no evidence illegals were voting.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> I'm pointing out how "outraged" he is when the other team cheats but conveniently go quiet or side step it when their team does it. Just the other week BM stated it was a "myth" that the Democrats try to cheat. Just after I posted that, he not only refused to condemn the potential allegations but was trying to suggest it was a false accusation and wanted more evidence which is ironic to me. If this were the Republicans he'd jump to accuse them of being cheaters and would believe it no matter what. We see this all the time, just as recently with his thoughts on the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. He bought into them because he is a Republican and wanted him to burn.
> 
> It's the refusal to call out his team that's annoying and the only reason he called out the Democrats over 2016 primary corruption was purely because he is a Bernie supporter .


Again where is the evidence of your claim, it died off pretty quickly and no real news source picked it up.

There is actually factual evidence of the GOP suppression, as for your claim, there is no evidence to back it up.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I just voted. The lines kept swelling and it was presidential levels. There was mild irritation because it was so packed and not enough folders but folks were fired up to cast their ballots. I made sure to get my sticker. 

I know it's a hail Mary but I hope Beto O'Rourke wins in Texas. Ted Cruz just rubs me the wrong way and he has no real conviction. He can't even be loyal to his own wife and father.

In any event, I'm happy that people are voting whether it be Republican, Democrat or other. 

I just hope we get a brief break before the 2020 discussions begin.


----------



## Draykorinee

Yeah, the turn out looks crazy good. Having such a divisive president has at least excited the voters.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

For the past two years, members of Democratic Party have encouraged hate, harassment, vandalism, theft, assault, getting people fired for their opposing political opinion, and even threats of assassination. That's why I'm never voting Democrat again!

They talk about RESIST, but ironically they have more seats to defend tonight. Their "blue wave" will be stopped by a red tide!

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45502864_10213778480164122_3649030491291516928_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=935344c45208b2fcd02d0392bd15e1fd&oe=5C42B3F7



> When republicans win, it'll be thanks to Putin and voter suppression


Democrats will also blame 3rd party voters again instead of accepting the results of the election.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

ARE YOU READY

FOR

THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF YOUR LIFE

NAY

EVER!!!!!!!11111ONEONEONEONE~*

*THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER ONLY GOOD FOR 2 YEARS. YOUR MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER WILL VARY. EVERY 2 YEARS.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

That is so true. :lol

Every election is the most important ever in existence. Until the next one. It reminds of the Wrestlemania promos. Michael Cole is literally hying up the next one while still on air. 

I hope the results start to come in fast tonight.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

This also happens when you do vote.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

that's a retarded comparison.

One is based on bad opinions on something that's subjective and doesn't have any real effect on reality.

The other shapes government for a few years at a time. Also govt does its thing no matter how you vote in a lot of cases.

I mean I get the guy is joking but it's a retarded joke.


or if they were serious


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> that's a retarded comparison.
> 
> One is *based on bad opinions on something that's subjective *and doesn't have any real effect on reality.
> 
> The other shapes government for a few years at a time. *Also govt does its thing no matter how you vote in a lot of cases.*
> 
> I mean I get the guy is joking but it's a retarded joke.
> 
> 
> or if they were serious


And yet in this post, you've said two things that are already incorporated into the joke ... Both bolded.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> And yet in this post, you've said two things that are already incorporated into the joke ... Both bolded.


there is no implication in what you posted that government does whatever it wants regardless of its constituents.

The joke is that bad things happen when you don't vote. That's it. But it's a dumb comparison so it's not a very good joke.

Your commentary above the joke is better.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Anyone know when results/tracking actually starts?


----------



## Draykorinee

I laughed a little at the joke.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Anyone know when results/tracking actually starts?


5 pm EST. That's when most coverage is starting and tracking data starts to get known. By 8 p.m., we should get firm results.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I laughed a little at the joke.


so did i :side:


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Anybody saying "voting doesn't matter" doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. I might be able to purchase alcohol on Sundays after today. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF MY LIFE.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Lol. You are going to go beg someone for the freedom you should intrinsincally already have and you think that this is power :lmao 

Isn't it the greatest con in the history of humanity that we first elect people to take away our own freedoms and then being able to gain them back through democracy gives us power :mj


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Love getting all these "Don't forget to vote!!!" messages I keep getting from liberal friends. :lol I'm gonna vote for Hitler's cronies. What you doing fam?

(I don't actually vote btw)


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I voted!

I'm getting lots of those "Make sure you vote!" from friends.

My sisters friend was bragging about how she was telling everyone to vote "Blue", I'm like "Vote blue? Don't look at the issues or the people you're voting for, just vote because Blue? What if a Green Party or Libertarian has better ideas and will make better changes? Shouldn't people know who they're voting for?"

Voting season is like Football season, doesn't matter if your team is garbage, by golly you're going to stick by them!


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I voted!
> 
> I'm getting lots of those "Make sure you vote!" from friends.
> 
> My sisters friend was bragging about how she was telling everyone to vote "Blue", I'm like "Vote blue? Don't look at the issues or the people you're voting for, just vote because Blue? What if a Green Party or Libertarian has better ideas and will make better changes? Shouldn't people know who they're voting for?"
> 
> Voting season is like Football season, doesn't matter if your team is garbage, by golly you're going to stick by them!


I agree and also disagree, everyone should know who they're voting for. But if we use my situation - I wanted to vote Labour, but they only get <8% of the vote in my area, so I had to vote Liberal just so they could potentially unseat our Tory MP. 

I'd love to be able to be principled and say I would vote for the person I think has the best policies but I don't like throwing my vote away.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I agree and also disagree, everyone should know who they're voting for. But if we use my situation - I wanted to vote Labour, but they only get <8% of the vote in my area, so I had to vote Liberal just so they could potentially unseat our Tory MP.
> 
> I'd love to be able to be principled and say I would vote for the person I think has the best policies but I don't like throwing my vote away.


What if 8 million people thought exactly this and decided to vote for someone they thought would win instead therefore creating a self fulfilling prophecy?


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> What if 8 million people thought exactly this and decided to vote for someone they thought would win instead therefore creating a self fulfilling prophecy?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I agree and also disagree, everyone should know who they're voting for. But if we use my situation - I wanted to vote Labour, but they only get <8% of the vote in my area, so I had to vote Liberal just so they could potentially unseat our Tory MP.
> 
> I'd love to be able to be principled and say I would vote for the person I think has the best policies but I don't like throwing my vote away.


I get what you're saying but I'm getting friends on FB/Work telling me to just vote Red/Blue and they don't even know who/what they're voting for.

It's shit like that gives us fucked up laws and so much corruption in American Politics.:crying:


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*










I got a sticker.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Pleasant amount of linertarian candidates here. Surprising actually. Just hope the new property tax is avoided and term limits are imposed in this state.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Voting season is like Football season, doesn't matter if your team is garbage, by golly you're going to stick by them!


I agree with this, but unfortunately, I have to pick the better poison since my pay check and tax dollars are involved.



> 5 pm EST. That's when most coverage is starting and tracking data starts to get known. By 8 p.m., we should get firm results.


I'm looking forward to the meltdown on social media tonight.

*#EndOfTheWorldAgain*

- Vic


----------



## skypod

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Seems like it's a choice between center right and hard right. No matter what there will never be healthcare, mandatory vacation days, environmentally safe policies, employee rights etc. because the public don't want it. If you wanted it you'd have it already.

If there is a small pocket that believe in those things, it seems easier to leave the US because you're never going to get what you want in your lifetime.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The pundits have been saying to watch the Andy Barr v. Amy McGrath race in Kentucky; that if Barr goes down, it will be a bad night for Republicans. Perhaps someone from that area can confirm this. 

The exit polls are about to come within the next few minutes.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Sorry it's all chopped up I don't think the tweets were showing properly originally



> Did Melania just break the law?
> By Rachel Olding
> 
> Donald and Melania Trump have voted by absentee ballot in New York, the White House has confirmed.
> 
> But a tweet from Melania's account is generating some discussion:
> 
> *Vote Red ?? MAGA ?? http://Vote.GOP *
> 
> The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits employees in the executive branch of government (except for the president, vice president and certain designated officials) from making partisan statements. Melania Trump would be exempt but her team wouldn't. So the question becomes, who wrote the tweet?
> 
> This is an interesting take from the former director of the Office of Government Ethics.
> 
> Walter Shaub
> ✔
> @waltshaub
> *The account says it’s run by her staff. The staff is covered by the Hatch Act. This would be a violation for staffers. Melania Trump’s Press Secretary, Stephanie Grisham, has already been found guilty of violating the Hatch Act once. Maybe she’s going for a twofer.*
> 
> *White House counsellor Kellyanne Conway has repeatedly faced accusations of violating the Hatch Act. She maintains that statements she has made in favour of candidates are made in a personal capacity.*
> 
> Citizens for Ethics
> ✔
> @CREWcrew
> * 1. We recently filed a Hatch Act complaint against Kellyanne Conway for using her official Twitter account for partisan messages
> 2. Conway removed her White House title from her Twitter bio
> 3. Conway explicitly endorsed a political candidate on her Twitterhttps://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/1059515160602259457 …*
> 
> Kellyanne Conway
> ✔
> @KellyannePolls
> *[email protected] has an excellent opportunity to send an Iraq war vet, West Point grad, successful businessman to the U.S. Senate.
> 
> Vote @JohnJamesMI for a fresh start and tell Debbie Stabenow 43 years in politics is too long.*


https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...ut-marks-start-of-voting-20181107-p50ef1.html


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sorry it's all chopped up I don't think the tweets were showing properly originally
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...ut-marks-start-of-voting-20181107-p50ef1.html


I'm glad we have you around to tell us about the real breaking news. Talking about stuff that matters.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059941889942667264

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059941010363555840

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059935718427033602

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059932198105681920

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059931148883804160
*In Indiana, Mike Braun (R) is currently ahead against Joe Donnelly (D) according to CNN*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> I'm glad we have you around to tell us about the real breaking news. Talking about stuff that matters.


There's that condescension back, I kinda missed it. Is that new wokeness wearing off?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> There's that condescension back, I kinda missed it. Is that new wokeness wearing off?


When have I stopped being condescending? It's just my targets changed :lol

But srsly tho ... You really did post about something so totally pointless I had to say something about it .. Is that really all your aussie media could find?

I'm actually in a very weird mood RN. My teasing isn't to be taken seriously.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I don't even want to watch Smackdown tonight. I'd rather just watch the midterm updates on the news minute by minute.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

^^I'm in a similar mood. Can't wait for the results to start coming in ... So I can whine at the TV about how horrible the future is :mj


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I agree and also disagree, everyone should know who they're voting for. But if we use my situation - I wanted to vote Labour, but they only get <8% of the vote in my area, so I had to vote Liberal just so they could potentially unseat our Tory MP.
> 
> I'd love to be able to be principled and say I would vote for the person I think has the best policies but I don't like throwing my vote away.


It's almost like you are arguing in favour of a 2 party system so nobody's vote is 'thrown' away. :troll


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Hey now if the UK was a true two party system they wouldn't have got the wonder that was Nick Clegg for a few years :trolldog


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> ^^I'm in a similar mood. Can't wait for the results to start coming in ... So I can whine at the TV about how horrible the future is :mj


I picked up some alcohol from the store. Not watching this 100% sober. I hate the updates. They seem to take forever.


----------



## Chrome

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> I picked up some alcohol from the store. Not watching this 100% sober. I hate the updates. They seem to take forever.


"It's too close to call." :lelbron


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

CNN Projects Bernie Sanders and Tim Kaine win their Senate races. Indiana is still too close to call.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Katy Tur was interviewing some black women and she asked if they had problems voting today. Katy so wanted them to say yes, but they said no. I expected Katy to then ask "are you sure?" but it didn't happen unfortunately. Khalessi can't save the day today :brady6


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

If you want to ignore the pundits like Katy who secretly get off on all the drama, this twitter feed has real time updates.

https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol

Democrats are leading in Florida while Donnelly is off to a slow start in Indiana.

*EDIT*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059968709735919619


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> I picked up some alcohol from the store. Not watching this 100% sober. I hate the updates. They seem to take forever.


Haha. Watching election results has been a family thing in my household since 1980s when Pakistan had it's first after Zia was assassinated. 

I am not getting why they're calling many states toss ups. It sounds like lies for ratings. Many of those states are not tossups.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Florida Governor and Senator races tightening up

Andy Barr (R) has a 1% lead over Amy McGrath (D) in KY-6 (Lexington and surrounding area) with 77% reporting, after trailing until recently in the count. If Barr holds on that is very good news for Republicans, if McGrath wins it is very good news for Democrats. KY-6 considered one of the bellwether districts in this election


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Lol


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

538 has the GOP chance to retain the House at 45% right this minute

If the Bad Orange Man btfos the experts once more :brock4


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Georgia Republican candidate Brian Kemp - who is also in charge of the state's election - had problems voting.
> 
> The Georgia governor's race is one of the most closely-watched in the country, due in part to an ongoing dispute over Kemp's management of the election system.
> 
> AP reported more than 50,000 voters were stuck in a "pending" status because their registration forms did not precisely match personal information on government databases — *under a system that can flag voters simply because of a missing hyphen. Nearly 70 per cent of the registrants were African-American, the news agency found.*


*

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...ut-marks-start-of-voting-20181107-p50ef1.html

A team of monkeys could do a better jerb.*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Nate Silver has gone from saying Dems had an 85% chance to take the House to Republicans having 60% chance back to Dems having a 60% chance all in one day. :lol What a profession.

My prediction for the day is looking pretty solid and might even have been too conservative (meaning the GOP might out-perform it).


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Beto v Cruz is looking about as tight as I expected. Beto has a real shot here.

Pretty incredible to be honest.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The Never Trumpers who were saying Cruz was more electable in a general election than Trump. :heston Dude can barely hold on to Texas.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*Some results 
*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059980611610386432


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059984830761521154

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059985661883752454

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059980900694458368

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059982505711988736

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059983737587425282

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059985477758078979

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059984765980495872


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

All the left-wing pundits now coming out and admitting there won't be anything resembling a blue wave tonight. :lol 

Can't help but feel that the Democrats unhinged attempt to destroy Brett Kavanaugh's life for political reasons backfired on them spectacularly. Have to credit Trump for standing by his man.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*More results*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059989990027874305

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059990159234646016

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059989735148535808
*Gillum and Nelson are fading in Florida. Georgia is a lost cause but Texas is emerging as the wild card.*


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Marsha Blackburn won. Eat shit, Taylor Swift! :lol

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Cruz up 1.3% in Texas, it will only grow as the votes from the rurals come in and the soyboys in Austin and Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth cry in their lattes over their impotence

There was zero chance Beto O'Bitchboy was gonna win


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> All the left-wing pundits now coming out and admitting there won't be anything resembling a blue wave tonight. :lol
> 
> Can't help but feel that the Democrats unhinged attempt to destroy Brett Kavanaugh's life for political reasons backfired on them spectacularly. Have to credit Trump for standing by his man.


*I'm not really sure what made them think there would be. Those pundits and the actions of some prominent figures on the left done nothing but fire up the Republican base. What the fuck did they think would happen? I saw this shit coming a mile away and they somehow didn't.... Shocking.*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> *Gillum and Nelson are fading in Florida. Georgia is a lost cause but Texas is emerging as the wild card.*


I wouldn't get your hopes up in Texas. The rural vote comes in later than the urban areas. 

Gillum fucked up by not campaigning in Brevard and along the East / Central Coast. Nelson didn't show his ass here either. Democrats think they can win on the strength of Miami alone and they're stupid for thinking so. Republicans use that weakness and exploit those areas for really strong support. It remained a STRONG electorate for republicans, *but* the democrats can break it if they actually would bother to show the fuck up. Elitest morons that they are, they stay rooted to cities and completely ignore the working class they pretend to support.

Volusia, Brevard and Indian River Counties combined are a 1 million strong electorate, and they are 60/40 republican ... mostly working class and similar demographic to the rest of the country. But they keep ignoring it and keep losing elections. 

Good Job Democrats. Good job :clap


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Gillum fucked up by being a corrupt incompetent mini-SCOAMF JEF


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Rick Scott is extremely popular down here. He's well liked and he got a massive boost for his efforts during the last three hurricanes. I see him winning by a narrow margin.

I also kinda like him :shrug One of the few republicans that I do.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059998351347855362

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059998650804420609

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059998268128661505

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059998942409252864


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*That's great for Jared Polis!*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Looks to me like they're now sticking to reporting on those states that the Dems were already expected to hold. 

No surprises.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Rick Scott is extremely popular down here. He's well liked and he got a massive boost for his efforts during the last three hurricanes. I see him winning by a narrow margin.
> 
> I also kinda like him :shrug One of the few republicans that I do.


Gillum and Beto both seem to be a case study in hype and actual votes. Beto just might get the win but I thought Gillum had this locked up. 

There will not be a blue wave. The GOP responded to the Dem enthusiasm. It was an energized electorate. The pundits are still predicting that the Dems will take control of Congress but not by a sweeping margin. 

At least Gillum and Nelson seem to be losing fair. I can't say that's the case in Georgia. A SOS should not also be a candidate overseeing his own election.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Harris County isn't all in. Obviously Beto is going to need to win big there to makeup for the rest of the state. 

DFW isn't actually staunchly Dem at all. Tarrant County aka Fort Worth leans GOP. The Metroplex pretty much cancels itself out. 

Austin is the land of the soy boy it's quite true so he'll need to win big there too.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I expected Marsha Blackburn to win, but that margin is really surprising. GOP voters who are uncomfortable with the rhetoric have decided bigotry is less of a flaw than being a democrat and voted along party lines. :lol


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*Georgia is a fucking mess hno*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> Gillum and Beto both seem to be a case study in hype and actual votes. Beto just might get the win but I thought Gillum had this locked up.


Nah. He made the same mistake all democrats make. He just campaigned around areas that were already going to vote him. But that seems to have become the establishment democrat way now. They're so busy "locking up" what's already "locked up" that they don't bother with the republican areas at all. Florida can be swung, but for that they need to energized the disenfranchised democrats. 

Gillum could not get the stink of "career politician" off of himself. As interested and active as I have become in politics, I knew exactly where Rick Scott was and my wife was given a Republican sign to hang in our yard for free but I couldn't even have easy access to a Gillum sticker. I went to his website and they want me to pay for the sign and pick it up myself ... Meanwhile, Scott's campaign workers were handing things out for free around the area. 

It's retarded how far removed the democrats are from the voter in some parts of Florida. 

I wouldn't want a democrat in power if he can't even be arsed to visit my county. Sorry. It doesn't bode well for the future. 

Rick Scott OTOH personally visited my wife's office and went into her office to shake her hand. That happened on Monday just a day before voting .. so I kinda respect that. Of course, he was also around during 3 disastrous hurricanes so I kinda grew to trust him and like him overall. He's moderate enough. he's not a bad guy. Florida's done well enough under his leadership imo.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060002816117354499

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060002524835577856

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060002152003842049

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060001592995389441

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060000766654627840

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060002483408318471

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060003538045206528

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060004021287694337


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

MITT :mark:


Good to have Guy Smiley back in this circus.


Looking at the current ratio of Dem to GOP in Harris, there isn't enough of a margin here if this ratio holds. Beto will need to increase his lead to hold off the red sea that is east and west rural Texas.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060004572834467840

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060004701608034304

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060004787218014208

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060004385718259717

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060005527864799233

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060002228864409600

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060005608315744256

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060004915353923585


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Romney had to make up for getting his ass kicked by Obama.

- Vic


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It's over. Ted Cruz is the projected winner.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> It's over. Ted Cruz is the projected winner.


Good night sweet Beto

Still incredible this was close. I can't even think of any state-wide Democrat doing this well in Texas.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Don't know why "pundits" thought that was not going to be the result. If an unpopular republican like Ted Cruz can win there (he had an approval rating around 30-40% if that, right?), I don't think that Democrats truly understand what's happening there at all.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Turns out GOP was right to panic over Cruz's seat. Trump saved his ass in Texas.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

lol Texas. lol Florida.

Democrats need 10 more seats to win the House. They've picked up 13 so far.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Let's watch how fast the narrative shifts from "BLUE WAVE" to "We barely won the House, what a historical accomplishment, Drumpf is finished!". :heston


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060007894979010560

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060008557796646913

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060009399845044224

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060008680303837186

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060003542889574402

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060000594235195392


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> lol Texas. lol Florida.
> 
> Democrats need 10 more seats to win the House. They've picked up 13 so far.


NBC has called the House for the Dems.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Ted Cruz lives to fight another day.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Cruz up 3.39%, 199,000 votes, according to Texas Office of the Secretary of State, with 1836 of 7393 precincts reporting

Most of the remaining precincts are in bumfuck nowheresville and will go heavily for Cruz, this myth of Texas being so close will be dust by morning. It won't be close at all

And now Ted's lead is up to 4.43% with 2086 precincts reporting. 270,000 vote lead.

Beto "so close" :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Gotta keep in mind that Democrats lost 63 seats during Obama's first mid-term. If Democrats can't pick up the majority in the house RN, things will get bleaker for them from here on out. If they aren't re-thinking their politics right now, then they never will.

This won't be a "wave" election if they pick up a _small _majority. It's just imprecise to call it that.

The term wave election is frequently used to describe an election cycle in which one party makes significant electoral gains. How many seats would Republicans have had to lose for the 2018 midterm election to be considered a wave election?



> Ballotpedia examined the results of the 50 election cycles that occurred between 1918 and 2016—spanning from President Woodrow Wilson's (D) second midterm in 1918 to Donald Trump's (R) first presidential election in 2016. We define wave elections as the 20 percent of elections in that period resulting in the greatest seat swings against the president's party.
> 
> Applying this definition to U.S. House elections, we found that Republicans needed to lose 48 seats for 2018 to qualify as a wave election.
> 
> The chart below shows the number of seats the president's party lost in the 11 U.S. House waves from 1918 to 2016. Click here to read the full report.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Also, Democrats voting based on identity politics, looks, sexual orientation, religion ... Makes them the same kind of people that vote for white men based on their identity. 

Sorry, but calling it like it is. 

If American politics are based on looks, sexual orientation and religion, then how are the Democrats any different from the Republicans that they accuse of voting for only cis white men. 

Sure, I may have become more left leaning recently, but we should all agree that the double standard around identity politics is cancer.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Reap can't come back :Out


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Reap can't come back :Out


You're so bothered by the fact that you can't put me into a neat little box. :mj4


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Congratulations to Utah, Michigan, and Missouri for legalizing marijuana! :clap

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Beto outraised Cruz 2.3 to 1 and is going to lose by at least 6%, probably closer to 10% :heston


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060012963749289986

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060014144647282688

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060013671106183169

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060013057848553472

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060012500333289476

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060015414397276161
*
Nancy Pelosi will return as Speaker of the House according to MSNBC. Ari Melber says Dems will request Trump tax returns *


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Also, Democrats voting based on identity politics, looks, sexual orientation, religion ... Makes them the same kind of people that vote for white men based on their identity.
> 
> Sorry, but calling it like it is.
> 
> If American politics are based on looks, sexual orientation and religion, then how are the Democrats any different from the Republicans that they accuse of voting for only cis white men.
> 
> Sure, I may have become more left leaning recently, but we should all agree that the double standard around identity politics is cancer.


It's really stupid regardless of what side they're on. Unfortunately, it isn't just the USA either.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Also, Democrats voting based on identity politics, looks, sexual orientation, religion ... Makes them the same kind of people that vote for white men based on their identity.
> 
> Sorry, but calling it like it is.
> 
> If American politics are based on looks, sexual orientation and religion, then how are the Democrats any different from the Republicans that they accuse of voting for only cis white men.
> 
> Sure, I may have become more left leaning recently, but we should all agree that the double standard around identity politics is cancer.


You mean there are racists on 'both sides'???


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Andrew Gillum has conceded the race in Florida.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Looking at the 2020 map there's a good chance the results tonight are reversed, GOP takes the House, Democrats take the Senate. GOP has a lot of Senate seats to defend in 2020 and the Democrats won a bunch of seats tonight that voted for :trump in 2016 and will be hard for them to hold when :trump is back on the ballot directly. Especially if Schiff/Cummings/Waters make good on their idiotic promises to try to ratchet up the Get Bad Orange Man! strategery


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Josh Hawley defeats Claire McCaskill.



> Andrew Gillum has conceded the race in Florida.


What a hard fought contest. I thought he was going to win.

- Vic


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060018155551162368

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060020188047912961

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060020242338996224

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060020154233470976

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060017010476756993

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060019711331643392

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060020609713954816
*Democrats are starting to run up the score in Congress. There are a lot of races too close to call but leaning Democrat per MSNBC*


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Not that it was remotely likely before but there is 0% Trump gets impeached now. Senate is going to end up too strong R.


----------



## JediScum

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Not that it was remotely likely before but there is 0% Trump gets impeached now. Senate is going to end up too strong R.


 Democrats win the House, Republicans keep the Senate. What does this mean for Trump? Btw, I’m a Republican.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



JediScum said:


> Democrats win the House, Republicans keep the Senate. What does this mean for Trump? Btw, I’m a Republican.


They are going to issue subpoenas out the ass for every single thing possible. Including Trump's tax returns. 

Called Democrats winning the House months ago on here. But MAGA dudes here wanted to double down instead of accepting reality.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



JediScum said:


> Democrats win the House, Republicans keep the Senate. What does this mean for Trump? Btw, I’m a Republican.


There'll be some annoying House investigations and he might get impeached, which won't actually do anything because you need the Senate to actually remove a president from office.


Headliner said:


> Called Democrats winning the House months ago on here. But MAGA dudes here wanted to double down instead of accepting reality.


Most people thought the Dems would take the House. The question was by what margin. Thus far it's looking to be a rather underwhelming one compared to what people were thinking. 

The Dems taking the Senate was talked about far more seriously than the GOP keeping the House. Instead, the GOP picked up seats in the Senate, so yeah. :lol

The talk in Trumplican circles is that most of the House seats lost were establishment Never-Trumpers or Soft Trumpers, and this will just mean when the GOP takes the House back in 2020 it'll be with resolutely pro-Trump candidates. Eh, we'll see. As a libertarian I'm actually fine with gridlock.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060018543687802884

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060016037939228672

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060026362235404288

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060023852896374784

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060027016244813826

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060025016580890629

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060027597550247937


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The Dems taking the Senate was talked about far more seriously than the GOP keeping the House. Instead, the GOP picked up seats in the Senate, so yeah. :lol
> 
> The talk in Trumplican circles is that most of the House seats lost were establishment Never-Trumpers or Soft Trumpers, and this will just mean when the GOP takes the House back in 2020 it'll be with resolutely pro-Trump candidates. Eh, we'll see. As a libertarian I'm actually fine with gridlock.


There was never a true shot of Democrats taking the Senate. The media acknowledged that several times over.


----------



## JediScum

Headliner said:


> JediScum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats win the House, Republicans keep the Senate. What does this mean for Trump? Btw, I’m a Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> They are going to issue subpoenas out the ass for every single thing possible. Including Trump's tax returns.
> 
> Called Democrats winning the House months ago on here. But MAGA dudes here wanted to double down instead of accepting reality.
Click to expand...

 I’m an anti-Trump Republican for the record lol. The man is an embarrassment. I don’t mind him being impeached, as long as we get a decent Republican.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



JediScum said:


> Democrats win the House, Republicans keep the Senate. What does this mean for Trump? Btw, I’m a Republican.


Nothing will get passed, the House will issue a bunch of empty threats about removing Trump from office and investigate/subpoena everything he does. Trump will take endless shots at Pelosi and win in 2020.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The general prediction was GOP winning the Senate and the House going towards the Democrats. I think the democratic disappointment is in the governor races where Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gilum both lost to the Trumpiest of Trump candidates. There was not much of a blue wave, or at least Trump countered the blue wave by his nativist rhetoric with the caravan that motivated his base to get out to vote. We will know more when the demo of this larger than usual turn out mid terms become clearer.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> There was never a true shot of Democrats taking the Senate. The media acknowledged that several times over.



*We'd like to see them get closer though. Closer than this anyway. 

Dems have to take a long hard look at this and adjust their strategy because this is clearly not working.

*btw I think all the celebrity endorsements hurt the left far more than it ever helps us**


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I just realized Republicans are going to hate Maxine Waters even more now because she's going to become Chairman of the Financial Services Committee. She's going to haunt the Trump administration with subpoenas like the damn boogeyman. :mj4


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Claire McCaskill has lost. It's 53% to 44%. She is conceding her race in Missouri.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Rick Scott is Senator now.



> Democrats win the House, Republicans keep the Senate. What does this mean for Trump?


It's going to be a tougher 2 years for him now with more gridlock, but he has executive orders and veto power to stick it to the Democrats. I highly doubt they'll be willing to work with each other. 



> *btw I think all the celebrity endorsements hurt the left far more than it ever helps us*


People who voted against Kavanaugh got voted out tonight.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CROFT said:


> *We'd like to see them get closer though. Closer than this anyway.
> 
> Dems have to take a long hard look at this and adjust their strategy because this is clearly not working.
> 
> *btw I think all the celebrity endorsements hurt the left far more than it ever helps us**


Healthcare is not as important as erasing Obama's policies or keeping immigrants out to many voters in those states. Not sure how Dems can win those votes back as long as they are painted as the enemy in the culture war or the open border party.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

This just means Trump and Trump like candidates will own the White House until god knows when. I might be able to stay on the ACA next year but after 2020 I know that will be gone.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

While the Dems obstruct and launch frivolous investigation after frivolous investigation, the GOP will be approving waves of new Trump federal judges. Obviously having the House is better than not having the House for the GOP, but overall I'd say they had the better night and are in a much better position for 2020 than the Dems are.


The Hardcore Show said:


> This just means Trump and Trump like candidates will own the White House until god knows when.


What? :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Congratulations to the first muslim lady reps and that lady under 30 to be elected! Smash through those glass ceilings ladies!










Also just heard about a huge upset in Oklahoma of all places, changing blue for the first time in 44 years? JR is probably spitting out his BBQ sauce in surprise. BAH GAWD! THIS CAN"T BE A GOOD SIGN FOR TRUMP!!!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CROFT said:


> *We'd like to see them get closer though. Closer than this anyway.
> 
> Dems have to take a long hard look at this and adjust their strategy because this is clearly not working.
> 
> *btw I think all the celebrity endorsements hurt the left far more than it ever helps us**


It would also help if the Democrats were actually Left. 

Obama and Bush lost more during the midterms than Trump has. Which is rather crazy when you think about it. 

Hollywood and rich elites give the Left a bad name, people look at the Left and they don't see anything but celebs and people who think they're better than everyone.

If the real Left want to gain voters they need to distance themselves from those types of people.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> While the Dems obstruct and launch frivolous investigation after frivolous investigation, the GOP will be approving waves of new Trump federal judges. Obviously having the House is better than not having the House for the GOP, but overall I'd say they had the better night and are in a much better position for 2020 than the Dems are.What? :lol


Trump is not losing in 2020 and the GOP will continue to try and find candidates like him in 2024.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> It would also help if the Democrats were actually Left.
> 
> Obama and Bush lost more during the midterms than Trump has. Which is rather crazy when you think about it.
> 
> Hollywood and rich elites give the Left a bad name, people look at the Left and they don't see anything but celebs and people who think they're better than everyone.
> 
> If the real Left want to gain voters they need to distance themselves from those types of people.


Actual leftists do think they're better than everyone though. :lol Watch TYT sometime. The elitist snark is overt. How dare everyone not think socialism is a good idea. 



The Hardcore Show said:


> Trump is not losing in 2020 and the GOP will continue to try and find candidates like him in 2024.


Yeah but what does that have to do with what happened tonight? You didn't really explain your statement at all. 

But I do agree with you.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Another two years of the president shitting all over the House of Representatives, driving what is actually supposed to be the most powerful part of what is supposed to be the most powerful branch of government into irrelevance :mark:

Too bad Obama set the precedent by ignoring subpoenas etc., shitting all over the House from 2011 on huh :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060040898707361792
Disgusting. :no:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

:heston

The self-delusion of Beto is just as strong as the self-delusion of Wendy Davis 

Had to look up her name since she's gone into the No Longer Useful to the National Media Protection Program after getting curbstomped by Abbott in 2014

She currently runs a feminist bookstore in Austin you know*

Just like Beto will be selling charcoal to hipsters - "Didn't you watch Thank You For Smoking? Chewing on charcoal beats breathalyzers!" in six months** 

*She doesn't

**He will be


----------



## JediScum

CamillePunk said:


> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would also help if the Democrats were actually Left.
> 
> Obama and Bush lost more during the midterms than Trump has. Which is rather crazy when you think about it.
> 
> Hollywood and rich elites give the Left a bad name, people look at the Left and they don't see anything but celebs and people who think they're better than everyone.
> 
> If the real Left want to gain voters they need to distance themselves from those types of people.
> 
> 
> 
> Actual leftists do think they're better than everyone though. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> Watch TYT sometime. The elitist snark is overt. How dare everyone not think socialism is a good idea. <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="" title="rolleyes" class="inlineimg" /> Don’t forget about the smug ass college liberals who are nowhere near as smart as they think.
Click to expand...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



JediScum said:


> Don’t forget about the smug ass college liberals who are nowhere near as smart as they think.


How could I? Just spent the last few years of my life rubbing elbows with and debating them. :lol Some of them are my best friends!

Implying leftists are somehow less arrogant or elitist than anyone else is hilarious to me. They're pricks when it comes to politics and no more befit attaining power than centrists or right-wing people.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060040898707361792
> Disgusting. :no:


Gawd this guy is such a try hard. He's just so fake, was he an actor before his run?

Democrats stop putting out "cool" candidates and ones that play identity politics and just address people's real concerns, the CITIZENS concerns and you'll get votes!


----------



## JediScum

CamillePunk said:


> JediScum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t forget about the smug ass college liberals who are nowhere near as smart as they think.
> 
> 
> 
> How could I? Just spent the last few years of my life rubbing elbows with and debating them. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> Some of them are my best friends!
> 
> Implying leftists are somehow less arrogant or elitist than anyone else is hilarious to me. They're pricks when it comes to politics and no more befit attaining power than centrists or right-wing people.
Click to expand...

 I’m amazed you’re friends with them considering leftists in 2018 threaten to end all ties with anyone who doesn’t agree with them .


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Actual leftists do think they're better than everyone though. :lol Watch TYT sometime. The elitist snark is overt. How dare everyone not think socialism is a good idea.
> 
> Yeah but what does that have to do with what happened tonight? You didn't really explain your statement at all.
> 
> But I do agree with you.


Starting tomorrow he will blame everything on the Democrats because they will be looking into him that will push him to win reelection and in the meantime I lose my health insurance because I have Asperger's depression sleep apnea and seizures. 

Not that you have an ounce of compassion for people or Vic Capri for that matter. You get your kicks watching people who will suffer because of what this piece of dogshit has done or will do.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Starting tomorrow he will blame everything on the Democrats because they will be looking into him that will push him to win reelection and in the meantime I lose my health insurance because I have Asperger's depression sleep apnea and seizures.
> 
> Not that you have an ounce of compassion for people or Vic Capri for that matter. You get your kicks watching people who will suffer because of what this piece of dogshit has done or will do.


O look... the “you enjoy watching them suffer!” Line. How original abd not damning to any future point you may make.....


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



JediScum said:


> I’m amazed you’re friends with them considering leftists in 2018 threaten to end all ties with anyone who doesn’t agree with them .


I don't shitpost IRL so my friends just know me as a libertarian who doesn't think everything Trump does is the worst, which is closer to the truth. :lol I find him entertaining and want him to get victories for our country, and I like to watch the Democrats fall apart of course, but I'm still a libertarian through and through with many, many disagreements with Trump's stated political positions and policies. Only areas I really diverge from other libertarians are immigration and trade. Letting in people who are going to vote for a bigger government is dumb. Free trade with foreign actors who don't reciprocate free trade is dumb. 



The Hardcore Show said:


> Starting tomorrow he will blame everything on the Democrats because they will be looking into him that will push him to win reelection and in the meantime I lose my health insurance because I have Asperger's depression sleep apnea and seizures.
> 
> Not that you have an ounce of compassion for people or Vic Capri for that matter. You get your kicks watching people who will suffer because of what this piece of dogshit has done or will do.


That's not true. I just don't want to be forced to pay for your healthcare at gunpoint. I wish you well.

https://www.gofundme.com/


----------



## JediScum

The Hardcore Show said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actual leftists do think they're better than everyone though. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> Watch TYT sometime. The elitist snark is overt. How dare everyone not think socialism is a good idea. <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="" title="rolleyes" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Yeah but what does that have to do with what happened tonight? You didn't really explain your statement at all.
> 
> But I do agree with you. <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> 
> 
> Starting tomorrow he will blame everything on the Democrats because they will be looking into him that will push him to win reelection and in the meantime I lose my health insurance because I have Asperger's depression sleep apnea and seizures.
> 
> Not that you have an ounce of compassion for people or Vic Capri for that matter. You get your kicks watching people who will suffer because of what this piece of dogshit has done or will do.
Click to expand...

 what?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Starting tomorrow he will blame everything on the Democrats because they will be looking into him that will push him to win reelection and in the meantime I lose my health insurance because I have Asperger's depression sleep apnea and seizures.
> 
> Not that you have an ounce of compassion for people or Vic Capri for that matter. You get your kicks watching people who will suffer because of what this piece of dogshit has done or will do.


How is it you still even have a place in this country? You've spent two years crying that you were metaphorically going to be erased because Orange Man Bad and people like you were literally going to be pushed out of the country by the Bad Orange Man, so how is it that you haven't been? :hmm:


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't shitpost IRL so my friends just know me as a libertarian who doesn't think everything Trump does is the worst, which is closer to the truth. :lol I find him entertaining and want him to get victories for our country, and I like to watch the Democrats fall apart of course, but I'm still a libertarian through and through with many, many disagreements with Trump's stated political positions and policies.
> 
> That's not true. I just don't want to be forced to pay for your healthcare at gunpoint. I wish you well.
> 
> https://www.gofundme.com/


It's crazy how a libertarian like you (or myself) come off as pretty right wing on here because the left is so obsessed with identity politics. Every political quiz I've ever taken has put me directly on the mid-line or slightly left with a heavy libertarian lean.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> It's crazy how a libertarian like you (or myself) come off as pretty right wing on here because the left is so obsessed with identity politics. Every political quiz I've ever taken has put me directly on the mid-line or slightly left with a heavy libertarian lean.


Yeah, nobody is more socially liberal (in terms of government policy, not necessarily how I think people ought to conduct themselves) or anti-war than me but somehow I get called a conservative all the time. :lol All right then.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> It's crazy how a libertarian like you (or myself) come off as pretty right wing on here because the left is so obsessed with identity politics. Every political quiz I've ever taken has put me directly on the mid-line or slightly left with a heavy libertarian lean.


See it a lot online... the extremeleft is so vocal and hostile online that it tends to foster reactions that veer away from talking about policies us libertarians agree with democrats on. I have been attacked berbally more by the progressive “tolerant” left than I have all conservative groups put rogether.

It is the reason the last few elections have fallen as they have. They are pushing away a lot of people with their pettiness.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Scott Walker with a 2,000 vote lead and the only unreported precincts left in Wisconsin are all in Walker-winning counties. Looks like Scott has pulled it off again in Wisky. Although there are allegedly 40,000 uncounted absentee ballots left in Milwaukee, what a surprise that Milwaukee is 100% reporting but *somehow* there's tens of thousands of uncounted absentee ballots there. What. A. Surprise.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, nobody is more socially liberal (in terms of government policy, not necessarily how I think people ought to conduct themselves) or anti-war than me but somehow I get called a conservative all the time. :lol All right then.


What a world we live in. I basically lean left except for identity politics and for fiscal stuff and just today someone implied I may be racist for saying Trump isn't pure evil. Even though i voted for Obama and didn't vote for Trump.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Well then, nearly all said and done and I think this was fairly predictable. 

Democrats now get to piss of Trump but ultimately give him ammunition for 2020.

Republicans can point to the gains as a big positive.

I foresee the Democrats managing to royally fuck up control of the house while Republicans carry on with the norm (which isn't good), lie after lie will be ignored, the rhetoric from both sides will be divisive and Cam will carry on pretending to be libertarian and a victim of unfair labeling.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

CP is as much a libertarian as Trump is a Communist :lmao So now he just shitposts on WF ... because why wouldn't he say that. He's lost all libertarian cred with any anarchist on here :lmao 

Not even deep is this delusional, who at least admits that he's a neocon / nationalist and therefore doesn't pretend to be something he's not. :heston


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

When people have to resort to believing they can read minds you know you're not dealing with serious people.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Democratic darling Stacey Abrams won't concede. Wants a recount despite losing by 100,000 + votes.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> When people have to resort to believing they can read minds you know you're not dealing with serious people.


Come up with an original retort at least. 

You run the far right bingo off like the best of them. :mj4


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

In VA-5, actress Olivia Wilde's mother has lost to her Republican opponent, a man who apparently enjoys Bigfoot erotica. You know, the e-books about Bigfoots fucking human women. We've talked about it before here :heston

Now what is this about nationalism in a disapproving tone, if everyone was nationalist like me there'd be no wars or international dick measuring contests over trivialities. Dicks would only be whipped out when absolutely necessary, like over which country had the better dicks. Aesthetically speaking :cudi


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Now what is this about nationalism in a disapproving tone, if everyone was nationalist like me there'd be no wars or international dick measuring contests over trivialities. Dicks would only be whipped out when absolutely necessary, like over which country had the better dicks. Aesthetically speaking :cudi


Da big bad globalist are gonna come for you. 

Watcha gonna do

Watcha gonna do 

When they come for you.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Trumps got a mushroom dick, not sure what Teresa's looks like, judging by her Brexit negotiating its probably a micropenis.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Trumps got a mushroom dick, not sure what Teresa's looks like, judging by her Brexit negotiating its probably a micropenis.


Now watch as CP list Trump's sexual prowess and machismo. 

So predictable :heston


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Trumps got a mushroom dick, not sure what Teresa's looks like, judging by her Brexit negotiating its probably a micropenis.


If may has a micropenis that would be a pretty big clit... did we just uncover that Britain's PM does mad steroids and has to tape her clitoris down? I eagerly await splitting the Pulitzer money with you sir

Or the national enquirer/daily mail money, it's all good


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Unlike some people I don't spend any amount of time thinking about the genitalia of a 72 year-old man. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060061704850206720
Trump claims ownership of the political careers of several GOP winners from tonight. :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Of course you do. You used to talk about his sexual prowess all the time. But of course maybe you were just shit posting then as well. So that nothing you say can be held to having actually been a serious post.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Nevada is officially a blue state. Dean Heller is out.

Scott Walker has also been voted out in Wisconsin.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So I take it the Democrats are still in charge of the house?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Of course you do. You used to talk about his sexual prowess all the time.


Pretty sure this never happened.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Wow people actually thought CP was totally 100% srs all these years.

:lol


I think I'm bargaining here but I realized there are lots of fuckers I dislike more than Ted Cruz. There's that Steve King guy what a retard. King reminded me of Louie Gomert. And then there's Scott Walker who I forgot existed.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Wow people actually thought CP was totally 100% srs all these years.
> 
> :lol


I'm pretty sure I never even joked about Trump having sexual prowess or anything though. :lol Reap just made that up just now to defend his own fascination with Trump's penis. He's such a weirdo. Did you catch his post where he said he recently went through a white nationalist phase? :done

Now I'm sure he'll say I used to spout white nationalist nonsense too without examples. More projection no doubt.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm pretty sure I never even joked about Trump having sexual prowess or anything though. :lol Reap just made that up just now to defend his own fascination with Trump's penis. He's such a weirdo. Did you catch his post where he said he recently went through a white nationalist phase? :done
> 
> Now I'm sure he'll say I used to spout white nationalist nonsense too without examples. More projection no doubt.


I definitely don't remember you talking/joking about Trump's sex magic either but I also haven't read every post ever.

I missed the white nationalist thing with Reap :lol he had to have been joking surely.



More bargaining...pot is legal in Utah wow. Is this real reality?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> I missed the white nationalist thing with Reap :lol he had to have been joking surely.


Nope, he was dead serious. It was in the context of deepelem and I rightfully calling him out for changing his political views every 6 months. :lol That was part of his defense.

Meanwhile my political views haven't changed much at all in the 6 years I've been posting about politics on here, just my expectations of what is realistically achievable. Call me rigid, but at least I was never a white nationalist!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm pretty sure I never even joked about Trump having sexual prowess or anything though. :lol Reap just made that up just now to defend his own fascination with Trump's penis.


Now who's lying :lmao 



> He's such a weirdo. Did you catch his post where he said he recently went through a white nationalist phase? :done


And it was fun while it lasted. Not that I advocated for anything or expressed it anywhere so entertaining an idea is not harmful in any way shape or form. 



> Now I'm sure he'll say I used to spout white nationalist nonsense too without examples. More projection no doubt.


Going through a phase is significantly better than continuing to pretend to be an anarchist/libertarian, and having lost all credibility on _both _sides of the political spectrum. Of course, what you're looking for is trying to dredge up some support for yourself with others now that you've lost that cred.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Now who's lying :lmao


Prove it. Show me several posts of me talking about Trump having sexual prowess. You said I used to talk about it all the time so clearly it wasn't some one or two-time throwaway joke.

I want a complete free market and the abolition of the government. There's no pretending here.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Reap thoughts on Bill Riccio?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Prove it. Show me several posts of me talking about Trump having sexual prowess. You said I used to talk about it all the time so clearly it wasn't some one or two-time throwaway joke.


You've already gone from saying that you _never_ said anything of the like to admitting that you might have said it as a throwaway joke.



CamillePunk said:


> I want a complete free market and the abolition of the government. There's no pretending here.


Continuing to repeat something that you only bring up when people get tired of you sucking a authoritarian's cock and defending his every single action makes you someone who is engaged in identity protection. Not someone who is actively pursuing an agenda based around those politics.



MrMister said:


> Reap thoughts on Bill Riccio?


I have no clue who that is.


----------



## Chrome

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> I definitely don't remember you talking/joking about Trump's sex magic either but I also haven't read every post ever.
> 
> I missed the white nationalist thing with Reap :lol he had to have been joking surely.
> 
> 
> 
> *More bargaining...pot is legal in Utah wow. Is this real reality?*


Even the Mormons are on the make pot legal wave. What a time.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> You've already gone from saying that you _never_ said anything of the like to admitting that you might have said it as a throwaway joke.


This is not how proving a claim works. You lied. 

Pakistan is not sending their best.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> This is not how proving a claim works. You lied.
> 
> Pakistan is not sending their best.


I guess admitting to doing something doesn't count as evidence anymore. 

Not like I had a gun to your head. I literally just repeated your words right back to you.

"Pakistan isn't sending their best" :mj4

Can you do anything more than just repeat your buzzword phrases? You're like a living embodiment of a bumper sticker.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> I guess admitting to doing something doesn't count as evidence anymore.
> 
> Not like I had a gun to your head. I literally just repeated your words right back to you.
> 
> "Pakistan isn't sending their best" :mj4
> 
> Can you do anything more than just repeat your buzzword phrases?


Didn't admit to anything. Correctly told you what the standard of evidence for proving your claim would be. Your poor grasp of logic fits with your current, no doubt temporary political alignment. 

At least I don't lie about people. (Y) Congratulations on having absolutely no integrity.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Didn't admit to anything. Correctly told you what the standard of evidence for proving your claim would be. Your poor grasp of logic fits with your current, no doubt temporary political alignment.


You admitted to possibly having made it as a throwaway joke. Then you limited it to maybe once or twice. So basically, you're not sure if you did it or not, but you gave yourself the out by arbitrarily setting the evidence yourself. Yeah, you don't get to choose what counts as the evidence. 



> At least I don't lie about people. (Y) Congratulations on having absolutely no integrity.


Considering I got you to rethink from "I never said that" to "I may have said it once or twice as a joke" without a gun to your head, pretty sure I'm not lying.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> You admitted to possibly having made it as a throwaway joke. Then you limited it to maybe once or twice. So basically, you're not sure if you did it or not, but you gave yourself the out by arbitrarily setting the evidence yourself. Yeah, you don't get to choose what counts as the evidence.


That isn't an admission of anything, and you made the claim before I made that post so you can't cite it as evidence. This is BM-level logic. Astounding what going left does to one's mind. 



> Considering I got you to rethink from "I never said that" to "I may have said it once or twice as a joke" without a gun to your head, pretty sure I'm not lying.


You're misusing quotation marks.


----------



## Chrome

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Alright let's chill out CP and Reap. Take it to Rants if you want to keep arguing.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Just defending myself against a blatant lie. :draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Chrome said:


> Even the Mormons are on the make pot legal wave. What a time.


Utah has a strict conservative base but they screwed up after denying kids with seizures medication that was derived from pot even though it wouldn't get you high. There was a lot of people disgusted by that so figured eventually the state would change it's mind considering it's high opiod issues. 

Besides pot = money, look at Colorado.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Imagine being a Socialist but then sucking the clit of Hillary Clinton, how intellectually dishonest would that person be? 

Now imagine being an anarchist and sucking the cock of Donald Trump...What a joke.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Imagine being a Socialist but then sucking the clit of Hillary Clinton, how intellectually dishonest would that person be?
> 
> Now imagine being an anarchist and sucking the cock of Donald Trump...What a joke.


An anarcho-*capitalist* supporting (again you guys and your fascination with sexualizing Donald Trump...you seriously need help) a capitalist icon. :heston Truly a strange universe we live in.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine being a Socialist but then sucking the clit of Hillary Clinton, how intellectually dishonest would that person be?
> 
> Now imagine being an anarchist and sucking the cock of Donald Trump...What a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> An anarcho-*capitalist* supporting (again you guys and your fascination with sexualizing Donald Trump...you seriously need help) a capitalist icon. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/m2XjBg7.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Heston" class="inlineimg" /> Truly a strange universe we live in.
Click to expand...

Yes, because using a saying is sexualising him, stop being desperate.

Anyways it was deep that stated the dick measuring, not mentioning your buddy though are?

Not understanding that idioms don't actually equate to the act. Not surprised.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Yes, because using a saying is sexualising him, stop being desperate.


You were talking about his "mushroom penis" on the last page. :lol But sure, there's no sexual focus there whatsoever. 

Y'all nasty. He is SEVENTY-TWO YEARS OLD.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Nope, he was dead serious. It was in the context of deepelem and I rightfully calling him out for changing his political views every 6 months. :lol That was part of his defense.
> 
> Meanwhile my political views haven't changed much at all in the 6 years I've been posting about politics on here, just my expectations of what is realistically achievable. Call me rigid, but at least I was never a white nationalist!


How is it a bad thing for someones political view to change? That is a good thing, unlike what you and deep do where no matter how bad your political view turns out to be, you keep doubling down to defend it. Your political view should always be evolving when new information is presented.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because using a saying is sexualising him, stop being desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> You were talking about his "mushroom penis" on the last page. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> But sure, there's no sexual focus there whatsoever.
> 
> Y'all nasty. He is SEVENTY-TWO YEARS OLD.
Click to expand...

That's what stormy Daniels said, and it was about dick measuring that deep brought up. Why do you ignore context and lie? Like I'm sexualising an old fucking man, pathetic troll attempt.

Stop lying.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is it a bad thing for someones political view to change? That is a good thing, unlike what you and deep do where no matter how bad your political view turns out to be, you keep doubling down to defend it. Your political view should always be evolving when new information is presented.


Imagine living in a world where you want ZERO government, then sucking the dick* of the government that is easily the most authoritarian we've seen and that continues to destroy even a smidgen of hope for libertarians.

Imagine 'your own party' writing this hit piece on Trump and Libertarianism, but still riding the Donald government train.


*This is an idiom used to denote kissing ass* and in no way implies sexualisation

*Kissing ass is also an idiom used to denote brown nosing and is not a sexualisation of Donald Trump, a repulsive 72 year old man.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

From what I understand and someone can correct me if I am wrong but it seems as though the Democrats barely won the House of Representatives this time around. Considering the amount of money and effort put into the mid terms for the Democrats hoping for a big swing away from Trump and the Republicans I'd actually argue that that is almost embarrassing for them. Big key elections such as Gillum in Florida and Beto in Texas did not go their way. Governships in particular were a failure for the Democrats. Other progressive seats such as O'Jeda who TYT and Secular Talk endlessly hyped up as an indication that a progressive wave was coming also came up very short. Sure, Ocasio-Cortez won but in a heavily Democratic area in NY, this was always going to happen. I think it's safe to say the progressives over stated just how much of an in wave they would make this time around.

Trump gaining in the senate as well as being able to appoint more GOP backed judges in the future means he's actually in a stronger position than what a lot of pundits are saying. Having such a short margin in the House also means some of Trump's agenda could still get through if the corporate democrats like the shills that they are are willing to back him which in some instances they have been. It is true some of Trump's critical agenda, particularly on immigration for example will be frustrated but he can always use this obstruction to his advantage for 2020. Most importantly from what I can see, a lot of Trump backed candidates won their elections. That is a critical mandate for him heading into the 2020 election cycle. There was not a blue wave, not even close to one.

Because of all this, you could actually make good arguments that the mid term elections were in fact a success for Trump. Trump has been mocked for putting on twitter about the tremendous success the mid terms were for him and the GOP but he's actually not that off base. Here's a good article from the Telegraph explaining this:


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ald-trump-called-midterms-tremendous-success/



> Donald Trump has secured a greater majority in the Senate by taking three seats from the Democrats in the midterm elections.
> 
> The Republicans' success in North Dakota, Indiana and Missouri has allowed Mr Trump to claim the midterms as a "tremendous success", though the loss of the House of Representatives presents the likelihood of legislative roadblock over the next two years.
> 
> But the good news for the President is that he has secured net gains in Senate seats despite low approval ratings and trailing behind the Democrats in the popular vote.
> 
> *Through the same targeted approach as he deployed in his 2016 presidential bid, Mr Trump seems to have played for key seats instead of votes.*
> 
> Mr Trump has therefore become one of just two Presidents with an approval rating lower than 50 per cent to win seats in the Senate, the other being Ronald Reagan in 1982. That year, the Republicans gained one seat in the upper chamber, despite Mr Reagan's low approval rating of 42 per cent.
> 
> The President's performance means the Republicans have blocked some of the Democrats' rising stars from reaching Congress. Beto O'Rourke, who had become a pinup for American liberals by running a surprisingly competitive race in Texas, ultimately fell short, with Ted Cruz winning re-election as the state's senator.
> 
> *A sitting President has only won Senate seats in five elections since 1946*
> 
> Trump's victory in the Senate bucks a wider historic trend. The incumbent President's party have won seats in the Senate in just five elections since 1946, but lost seats in 13.
> 
> In 2014, Barack Obama's Democrats lost nine seats in the upper chamber, with an approval rating hovering at around the same level as Mr Trump's in the run up to these midterms.
> 
> This allowed Mr Trump to take to Twitter to claim that “there’s only been 5 times in the last 105 years that an incumbent President has won seats in the Senate in the off year election.”
> 
> But while the Republicans have won three new Senate seats, the loss of Nevada takes the GOP to a net gain of two seats.
> 
> Mike Braun ousted Joe Donnelly with 52.8 per cent of the vote in Indiana, while Josh Hawley took a Missouri seat from Claire McCaskill (with 51.8 per cent).
> 
> North Dakota Democrat incumbent Heidi Heitkamp was seen as particularly vulnerable going into the elections, and lost her seat to Republican Kevin Cramer who claimed 54.7 per cent of the vote.
> 
> Such results allowed Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, to claim that “Anybody that was anticipating a blue wave tonight is not going to get it."
> 
> *Targetted Trump rallies helped*
> 
> *The results show that Donald Trump rallies helped the Republicans, with key Senate gains occurring around areas that Mr Trump heavily campaigned in.*
> 
> On the day before Americans went to the ballot box, the US president scheduled campaign stops in Ohio, Indiana and Missouri in a last-minute push for votes. All three states featured Democrat senators fighting for re-election in states that Mr Trump won two years ago.
> 
> His late intervention may have helped Indiana over the line for the Republicans, although Ohio and Missouri remained in Democrat hands.
> 
> Trump had thrown himself into the campaign, holding more events than his predecessors Barack Obama and George W Bush did while in office and urging voters to imagine that it was his name is on the ballot.
> 
> *A word of warning: Swing seats went to the Democrats*
> 
> But it's not all good news for Mr Trump's and his 2020 bid.
> 
> The swing states of Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida were crucial to Mr Trump claiming the White House in the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> But these areas have now moved away from his party in the 2018 mid term elections. Of the 69 districts in these five crucial swing states, 48 recorded a negative vote share change for the Republicans.
> 
> In four areas, they held their ground, while 10 districts saw the Republicans increase their vote share.
> 
> The Republicans lost 15 percentage points in the Ohio 12 district, 11 points in the Florida 12 and Iowa 4 district and 10 points in the Wisconsin 1 district, compared to the 2016 congressional results.
> 
> Such results will give the Democrats hope of beating Trump in the 2020 election. The party managed to take four seats from the Republicans in these crucial swing states: Michigan 8 and 11, Iowa 1 and 3, as well as Florida 26 and 27.


Unfortunately I can't paste the images from the article so it's worth looking at the graphs to show the landscape. The part I bolded about Trump's approach is key and this is one of the areas where the Democrats have not learned from two years ago. Trump is actually very shrewd and smart when it comes to election cycles and targets the key areas and seats of the country in order to push forward victories where he needs them. It could and should have been a lot worse for him than it was but not only did the GOP barely lose the house, he actually gained and strengthened his position elsewhere. The Democrats screeching OH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POPULAR VOTE isn't going to help them, they have to campaign better with the system that is in place or they won't win in 2020.

The Democrats in all truth and purposes should have at least had as big if not a bigger swing away from the GOP and Trump as the Republicans gained in 2010 when Obama was president. They somehow managed to not come close to that and it's their own fault.


----------



## JediScum

Kabraxal said:


> Undertaker23RKO said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's crazy how a libertarian like you (or myself) come off as pretty right wing on here because the left is so obsessed with identity politics. Every political quiz I've ever taken has put me directly on the mid-line or slightly left with a heavy libertarian lean.
> 
> 
> 
> See it a lot online... the extremeleft is so vocal and hostile online that it tends to foster reactions that veer away from talking about policies us libertarians agree with democrats on. I have been attacked berbally more by the progressive “tolerant” left than I have all conservative groups put rogether.
> 
> It is the reason the last few elections have fallen as they have. They are pushing away a lot of people with their pettiness.
Click to expand...

 Thank you. It’s what pushes people away from politics. Even though liberals like that are usually in the minority, they’re still very vocal and the ones that liberal politicians cater to and that is frightening.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> The Democrats in all truth and purposes should have at least had as big if not a bigger swing away from the GOP and Trump as the Republicans gained in 2010 when Obama was president. They somehow managed to not come close to that and it's their own fault.


Whilst I completely disagree that the swing should have been similar to 2010, which is the second worst in history and coming on the back of healthcare reforms, rising debt/deficit and a recovering but not recovered economy, you are right that the Dems are mostly at fault for failing to take a few more seats.

Trump, for all my dislike of him, clearly did a good job, and without his input the Dems would have gained more seats even though they sucked.

You also have to look at the energised voter base, Obama is not like Trump, he did not instill the same 'energy' (What I call division, emnity, hatred, fear). People went out in droves this year, its a completely different field to 2010 and everyone should have expected this result except for the senate seats and that was mighty close at times.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



JediScum said:


> Thank you. It’s what pushes people away from politics. Even though liberals like that are usually in the minority, they’re still very vocal and the ones that liberal politicians cater to and that is frightening.


Not just liberal ones and not just politicians. How many people are fired or how many businesses shunned due to internet outrage, the permanently offended on the left seem to have far more clout than the permanently offended on the right of which there are equal measure. Thats my big problem with modern politics, its not like the right are any less upset, angry, violent, (CP will say otherwise ofc) its just that the left seem to not only get away with it, but its encouraged and supported.

And I say this as an actual leftie and not the pretend American ones, people like me are not few and far between either, but we're tarred with the same brush as your pink haired rabid feminists just because we think people should be made bankrupt because they have a medical emergency.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'm pleased with the results. Gillum, Abrams and Beto losing does sting but I'm not going to hand wave the victories or dismiss them as a repudiation of why Democrats are the bad people for progressive agendas. It would be so if many of these races were decided by blowouts, not razor thin margins. The Democrats won the popular vote by 9 points, secured 30 house seats and went 7/8 in Gov races. That is a dent. 

For two years, Trump has governed with unfettered power with a complicit GOP; a wink and and nod with every profane gesture and policy. It's why I don't need the smelling salts when it comes to Beto dropping the F Bomb. There are still kids separated from their families, in cages, healthcare issues and keeping more of your dollar, etc. His coarseness is not a concern of mine. Neither are celebrity endorsements. I don't think they're helpful but they've got a right to weigh in, especially since we've got a celeb POTUS who governs like one.

A check and balance returns in January. At this point, my hope is not even endless investigations to catch Trump in wrongdoing but just a simple return to the most basic check on the presidency.

I'm also happy pot is legal in more places. I don't smoke it but it shouldn't be legally restricted.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Well my governor won, so I'm happy. 

Hogan! Hogan! Hogan!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Florida was ripe for taking this year. But of course the democrats ran established career politicians who were no shows in the majority of the state. Has nothing to do with the people here and everything to do with their candidates being lazy elites who spent all their time in the cities.

It's like ever since Obama campaigned the entire country and canvased every location the democrats forgot what campaigning even is. 

The money these people are raising and their electorate is rasing for them is obviously being funneled somewhere. Probably to off shore accounts. No way are they actively spending all the money they're claiming to spend. You don't get negative returns on investment. It seems counter intuitive.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> It's why I don't need the smelling salts when it comes to Beto dropping the F Bomb. There are still kids separated from their families, in cages, healthcare issues and keeping more of your dollar, etc. His coarseness is not a concern of mine.


You'll notice the same people upset by his F bomb are generally the same who laughed at Trump applauding assaulting a reporter.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



TripleG said:


> Well my governor won, so I'm happy.
> 
> Hogan! Hogan! Hogan!


I hear he's a very solid governor. I don't live in your state but I wish more people would put the actual record over party ID. 



Reap said:


> *Florida was ripe for taking this year. But of course the democrats ran established career politicians who were no shows in the majority of the state. Has nothing to do with the people here and everything to do with their candidates being lazy elites who spent all their time in the cities.
> 
> It's like ever since Obama campaigned the entire country and canvased every location the democrats forgot what campaigning even is. *
> 
> The money these people are raising and their electorate is rasing for them is obviously being funneled somewhere. Probably to off shore accounts. No way are they actively spending all the money they're claiming to spend. You don't get negative returns on investment. It seems counter intuitive.


Perhaps you need to give them some pointers. As you said, Florida seemed so ripe and Gillum loses. Nelson is on course to lose. 

It looks like Lucy McBath is poised to win against Karen Handel. I hope she pulls it out. 

Stacey Abrams has announced she will not concede.



Draykorinee said:


> You'll notice the same people upset by his F bomb are generally the same who laughed at Trump applauding assaulting a reporter.


I'm sick of the blatant hypocrisy. I don't expect or need politicians to be saints, just fairly decent people. Most people cuss. I certainly do. Well, not around small kids and my mom.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> I hear he's a very solid governor. I don't live in your state but I wish more people would put the actual record over party ID.


He is literally the only candidate from one of the major parties that I voted for this election, and that was entirely because of his record and his job performance. 

Last I saw, he has like a 70% approval rating in this state, so I figured he'd get re-elected.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Democratic darling Stacey Abrams won't concede. Wants a recount despite losing by 100,000 + votes.
> 
> - Vic


Tell me how many voters were purged again? And I would ask for a recount too with all the fuckery that went on in her state Kemp should be in jail for all the voter fuckery he did


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> I'm pleased with the results.


Same.



> Losing the House was a buzzkill, but not by many compared to Obama and Clinton. Democrats winning also prevented any riots / street protests from 2 years ago.
> 
> GOP has more Senate seats.
> 
> GOP wins and maintains Governors in key battleground states.
> 
> Democrats who voted against Brett Kavanaugh got voted out.
> 
> Most of Hollywood's favorites lost: Beto, Gillum, Abrams, Hallquist, Bredesen, and Jealous.
> 
> Less Never Trumpers: McCain's gone, Ryan & Flake quit, and Comstock & Heller got voted out.
> 
> More women elected.
> 
> More states legalizing marijuana.


The blue wave was a trickle.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> Perhaps you need to give them some pointers. As you said, Florida seemed so ripe and Gillum loses. Nelson is on course to lose.


I talked to a few people in the black community around my area (and there are plenty). In fact, I live in a majority black/non-white middle class neighborhood now and there just is no energy. They weren't "activated" and I think apathy set in. A lot of millennial democrats in my area are not being reached. The younger kids who voted Obama in 2012 are now adults in the work force and they are still feeling the sting of Hillary's betrayal because a lot of them still aren't over what they did to Bernie (My area had strong support for Bernie in 2016 and that seems to have tapered). 

Gillum didn't get his message out there. I didn't even know he was running for governor till I found out about it in this thread. But then when I went back and looked him up, he was being dogged by allegations of corruption .. But that doesn't mean anything because his opponent was an even bigger unknown. 

Some of the counties Gillum lost voted Obama in 2012. 










^Obama 2012










Notice all the Pink that has turned Red and the Blue that was lost. 

These are the swing voters and Democrats are abandoning them in the false hope of the cities turning the entire state Blue for them. Well, Blue is gonna stay blue ... they can't ignore the rest of the state. They need to get out there and actively campaign.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> I talked to a few people in the black community around my area (and there are plenty). In fact, I live in a majority black/non-white middle class neighborhood now and there just is no energy. They weren't "activated" and I think apathy set in. A lot of millennial democrats in my area are not being reached. The younger kids who voted Obama in 2012 are now adults in the work force and they are still feeling the sting of Hillary's betrayal because a lot of them still aren't over what they did to Bernie (My area had strong support for Bernie in 2016 and that seems to have tapered).
> 
> Gillum didn't get his message out there. I didn't even know he was running for governor till I found out about it in this thread. But then when I went back and looked him up, he was being dogged by allegations of corruption .. But that doesn't mean anything because his opponent was an even bigger unknown.
> 
> Some of the counties Gillum lost voted Obama in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^Obama 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice all the Pink that has turned Red and the Blue that was lost.
> 
> These are the swing voters and Democrats are abandoning them in the false hope of the cities turning the entire state Blue for them. Well, Blue is gonna stay blue ... they can't ignore the rest of the state. They need to get out there and actively campaign.


The way Democrats think about campaigning drives me crazy. Always playing the numbers and probability. Concentrate on certain areas instead of running everywhere.

Also, I repeatedly hear them say something akin to "economically poor/rural white people are hurt by Republican policies, but they vote for them instead of us. Why do they vote against their own interest? Why are they so stupid?"

For the sake of argument let's say they're right in that statement. It's simple really, they vote for Republicans because Republicans at least pretend to like them. You don't ignore and/or insult a whole group of people into voting for you. Build a bridge for fuck's sake. Go to those areas and talk to them. Even if they don't vote for you this time, just seeing a real face that acknowledges them might make them more open to the idea down the line.

Stacey Abrams didn't campaign once in my general area. She concentrated on Atlanta, its suburbs, a few other large cities, a couple of majority black counties, and that was pretty much it. There were votes to be picked up here and the rest of the state. Not saying it was a huge amount, but in a race this close every vote counted, especially with Kemp's shenanigans. 

I just don't understand after the amazing success that was the 2008 election for Democrats why they completely abandoned a strategy that worked so well for them. They instead choose to play moneyball, get the same negative results, and act surprised.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

They not only act surprised they blame Russians and white supremacists and other fantasies instead of examining why they lost. There are always reasons for any failure. And always the most important thing about failure is examining why the failure occurred; you learn and you improve from failure. Sometimes the failure was unavoidable. Far more often it's because of mistakes or flawed strategy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Same.
> 
> 
> 
> The blue wave was a trickle.
> 
> - Vic


Still a disaster for Trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I just don't understand after the amazing success that was the 2008 election for Democrats why they completely abandoned a strategy that worked so well for them. They instead choose to play moneyball, get the same negative results, and act surprised.


You know where Gillum went in Central Florida? Cocoa Beach. You know what Cocoa Beach is famous for? High crime rate and one of the more dangerous ghettos in this area. 

But you know what he actually did? Give a short campaign speech in a closed hotel to 150 people ... 

He skipped the entire Spacecoast beyond that. So it's the exact same strategy. Spacecoast was pink in 2012. Now it's HARD republican. This should not have happened and it only happened because Trump and Rick Scott focused their direct energies on the area. 

Brevard was turned dark red during Trump's 2016 campaign. He made it important and stand out (held a couple of rallies in a small city Melbourne). Rick Scott actively goes out and meets people and he became the face of the Hurrican relief efforts and he did a great fucking job. Great fucking job. Republican or not, I would have voted for him simply because of how personable he is and how his administration handled the hurricane relief efforts. He was on the ground and actively handing out contracts including emergency contracts within days. Everything remained well under control after all three hurricanes. 

Trump is still a regular feature in Melbourne Airport. Rick Scott was campaigning in company offices meeting people directly and giving them signs to put up in their yards as late as Monday morning before election day. 

The margin of victory for both candidates (rick and desantis) was between 60k and 40k voters ... They don't care about not just the white middle class that populates these areas, but they've also abandoned the black middle class in the Spacecoast and the west coast and constantly losing ground as a result.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> The way Democrats think about campaigning drives me crazy. Always playing the numbers and probability. Concentrate on certain areas instead of running everywhere.
> 
> Also, I repeatedly hear them say something akin to "economically poor/rural white people are hurt by Republican policies, but they vote for them instead of us. Why do they vote against their own interest? Why are they so stupid?"
> 
> For the sake of argument let's say they're right in that statement. It's simple really, they vote for Republicans because Republicans at least pretend to like them. You don't ignore and/or insult a whole group of people into voting for you. Build a bridge for fuck's sake. Go to those areas and talk to them. Even if they don't vote for you this time, just seeing a real face that acknowledges them might make them more open to the idea down the line.
> 
> Stacey Abrams didn't campaign once in my general area. She concentrated on Atlanta, its suburbs, a few other large cities, a couple of majority black counties, and that was pretty much it. There were votes to be picked up here and the rest of the state. Not saying it was a huge amount, but in a race this close every vote counted, especially with Kemp's shenanigans.
> 
> I just don't understand after the amazing success that was the 2008 election for Democrats why they completely abandoned a strategy that worked so well for them. They instead choose to play moneyball, get the same negative results, and act surprised.


You'd think that they'd come up with a solution but the Democrats abandoned the working class and couldn't care any less about Rural people regardless of skin color. A lot of them despise rural whites and even the South itself, Reap isn't even white and people here were dismissing his opinion based on geographical location. 

In order to reach rural people especially whites, they'd have to stop treating them like subhumans, good luck with that! They'd rather just complain and hope for mass amnesty :laugh:



birthday_massacre said:


> Still a disaster for Trump


Disaster would be losing lots of senate seats and 60+ house seats like the Democratic Savior Obama did. Trump is supposedly the WORST EVER and the Democrats with all their outside state funding, celebs and bugging for votes barely made a splash. Think about it, the guys Obama endorsed didn't even do anything. 

The Democrats look like complete fucking idiots right now. The fact people are trying to spin this as a major win instead of sitting down and realizing they done fucked up is why they'll run Hillary in 2020.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You'd think that they'd come up with a solution but the Democrats abandoned the working class and couldn't care any less about Rural people regardless of skin color. A lot of them despise rural whites and even the South itself, Reap isn't even white and people here were dismissing his opinion based on geographical location.
> 
> In order to reach rural people especially whites, they'd have to stop treating them like subhumans, good luck with that! They'd rather just complain and hope for mass amnesty :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> Disaster would be losing lots of senate seats and 60+ house seats like the Democratic Savior Obama did. Trump is supposedly the WORST EVER and the Democrats with all their outside state funding, celebs and bugging for votes barely made a splash. Think about it, the guys Obama endorsed didn't even do anything.
> 
> The Democrats look like complete fucking idiots right now. The fact people are trying to spin this as a major win instead of sitting down and realizing they done fucked up is why they'll run Hillary in 2020.


Pelosi regains her spot, Clinton as candidate in 2020. Would be effing hilarious.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> It's why I don't need the smelling salts when it comes to Beto dropping the F Bomb.


I was joking with that post. I swear like a sailor. :lol

Btw talking about the "popular vote" in a midterm election is extremely silly. :lol


----------



## Headliner

They saying Republicans lost 333 legislative seats and 7 Governorships. They did pretty poor in the midwest it seems.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Same.
> 
> 
> 
> The blue wave was a trickle.
> 
> - Vic


You do realize that Trump is a celebrity too right?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Pelosi regains her spot, Clinton as candidate in 2020. Would be effing hilarious.


And thats whats likely to happen. What is the definition of insanity again?


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> .
> 
> The Democrats look like complete fucking idiots right now. The fact people are trying to spin this as a major win instead of sitting down and realizing they done fucked up is why they'll run Hillary in 2020.


Yeah, this is not a big win for either side, quite frankly unless anything drastic happens due to house control, this is a minor win for Trump in my opinion.

If Hillary runs in 2020...


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So I live in liberal town USA, so I was expecting major celebrations that the Dems won the house. 

But it has been eerily quiet today. The usual suspects that talk politics all the time haven't said a word, and my facebook feed has been muted on the subject. 

I mean I guess that's better than obnoxious gloating or rioting when you lose big. 

We should have more purple elections. :laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You'd think that they'd come up with a solution but the Democrats abandoned the working class and couldn't care any less about Rural people regardless of skin color. A lot of them despise rural whites and even the South itself, Reap isn't even white and people here were dismissing his opinion based on geographical location.
> 
> In order to reach rural people especially whites, they'd have to stop treating them like subhumans, good luck with that! They'd rather just complain and hope for mass amnesty :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> Disaster would be losing lots of senate seats and 60+ house seats like the Democratic Savior Obama did. Trump is supposedly the WORST EVER and the Democrats with all their outside state funding, celebs and bugging for votes barely made a splash. Think about it, the guys Obama endorsed didn't even do anything.
> 
> The Democrats look like complete fucking idiots right now. The fact people are trying to spin this as a major win instead of sitting down and realizing they done fucked up is why they'll run Hillary in 2020.


LOL the only one looking like an idiot is Trump claiming this was a win for the GOP.

This was a win for the Democrats, its not as big as it could have been but its still a win, if you deny that you are lying to yourself.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I was joking with that post. I swear like a sailor. :lol
> 
> Btw talking about the "popular vote" in a midterm election is extremely silly. :lol



The popular vote is silly when it comes to midterms. I can concede that but it does make me feel good knowing that people are coming out to vote. Midterms are usually low energy. I hope the outcome is even higher in 2020. 

Is anyone watching the Trump press conference right now? It's so wild. :lol Trump just said he didn't know who Lil Jon was.



Draykorinee said:


> Yeah, this is not a big win for either side, quite frankly unless anything drastic happens due to house control, this is a minor win for Trump in my opinion.
> 
> If Hillary runs in 2020...


I hope Hillary has gotten this out of her system. We need fresh blood in 2020 and a charismatic personality. Say what you want about Trump but he personifies the cult of personality. It's easy to see why many are drawn to him.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> *The popular vote is silly when it comes to midterms*. I can concede that but it does make me feel good knowing that people are coming out to vote. Midterms are usually low energy. I hope the outcome is even higher in 2020.
> 
> Is anyone watching the Trump press conference right now? It's so wild. :lol Trump just said he didn't know who Lil Jon was.


Disagree, because gerrymandering plays a huge role in the minority taking power over the majority even in midterms. Its all about where the lines are drawn.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Disagree, because gerrymandering plays a huge role in the minority taking power over the majority even in midterms. Its all about where the lines are drawn.


Very valid point. I was looking at from a different context but stand corrected.

This is hilarious to me. He was on Celebrity Apprentice. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060233923848859648


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Jim Acosta is a joke. :lol Trump should just ban him. Interrupts his own colleagues who defend him when they're trying to ask their own questions.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> Very valid point. I was looking at from a different context but stand corrected.
> 
> This is hilarious to me. He was on Celebrity Apprentice.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060233923848859648




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/491668720444792832


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Congrats to Dennis Hof on winning despite dying last month.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna933366


----------



## Draykorinee

Stephen90 said:


> The Woman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very valid point. I was looking at from a different context but stand corrected.
> 
> This is hilarious to me. He was on Celebrity Apprentice.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060233923848859648
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/491668720444792832
Click to expand...

Trump lying. 

:bunk


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Since the midterms are over, I hope the temperature goes down. I know some pundits are already discussing 2020 but I hope there's a reprieve from all day politics and breaking news. Trump attacks the media far too much but they are obsessed with him. Is it too much to ask that they diversify their coverage? It's 24/7 Trump. 

It was just announced that Jon Tester has won.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060232222064680962


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stephen90 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/491668720444792832


That's not the first time he's done that and I'm not sure why he does it. He did it with David Duke , who he criticized a few times,and left the reform party because of him in 2000 but during his campaign in 2016 he says he didnt know who he was.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You'd think that they'd come up with a solution but the Democrats abandoned the working class and couldn't care any less about Rural people regardless of skin color. A lot of them despise rural whites and even the South itself, Reap isn't even white and people here were dismissing his opinion based on geographical location.
> 
> In order to reach rural people especially whites, they'd have to stop treating them like subhumans, good luck with that! They'd rather just complain and hope for mass amnesty :laugh:...


I live here in rural Georgia. The stereotype that they think of when they think of rural Georgia does exist here, but there are so many people that don't fit it, at least not completely. They could reach some of them if they'd try. But they've burned into their brains that everyone here is Duck Dynasty and there's no chance of changing those "dumb ********/hillbillies". It's a self defeating philosophy.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Think people are underestimating how easy it is to forget people's names when you meet new people nonstop every day of your life. Seeing someone saying nice things about you in a news article and getting to see their name and know who they are from the context is very different than remembering on the spot. In the David Duke case he made a statement about him after learning through whatever channel about his association with the Reform Party. Again, very different from just being given a name at a press conference and expected to know who they're talking about. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060225455696084994
:lol


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> Since the midterms are over, I hope the temperature goes down. I know some pundits are already discussing 2020 but I hope there's a reprieve from all day politics and breaking news. Trump attacks the media far too much but they are obsessed with him. Is it too much to ask that they diversify their coverage? It's 24/7 Trump.
> 
> It was just announced that Jon Tester has won.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060232222064680962


They can't help themselves because most mainstream media outlets are left leaning, so a Republican is already facing (at the very least) a slight uphill battle. He is also someone who doesn't hold back and isn't afraid to punch back at them. So unfortunately, you're going to get this scenario and it probably only gets worse in the future after Trump is out of the white house


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060237796835770368
Totally Fake News. The President called on Jim Acosta. Acosta asked a question. The President answered the question. The President called on someone else. Acosta refused to relinquish the microphone and continued asking more questions. Then the other journalist began asking their question and Acosta stood back up and kept talking. How is that in any way acceptable? How is it unacceptable to criticize him for that kind of behavior? 

Complete nonsense. Acosta should be banned from these press conferences. He's a disgrace to his profession and has no respect for his colleagues. He's more of a narcissist than Trump is.

It's amazing to me that the president can hold a press conference for over an hour, answering a ton of questions, extending the press conference through his own discretion, and then be accused of being against the free press. Hysterical anti-reality bullshit.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060231815716200449
He hates the press soooooooooo much.  What an absolute tyrant.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Since the midterms are over, I hope the temperature goes down. I know some pundits are already discussing 2020 but I hope there's a reprieve from all day politics and breaking news. Trump attacks the media far too much but they are obsessed with him. Is it too much to ask that they diversify their coverage? It's 24/7 Trump.


CNN President Jeff Zucker admitted in a recent interview with Vanity Fair that they would have no ratings if they didn't talk about Trump *ALL THE TIME!*

- Vic


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Jim Acosta is a disgrace.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'm still astounded (not actually astounded) that the press can pretend they're under attack and journalism is important and all that stuff (they're right it is) while also being complete and utter whores that care mostly about ratings and clicks.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The American press is utter dross, it really is the lowest of the low. I rag on the BBC a lot, but sweet jesus its nothing compared to what I see from Fox, MSNBC or CNN et al.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Journalism is important, which is why more so-called journalists should try actually doing some journalism instead of being dishonest political activists and showboats.

Meanwhile


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060274839783653376
Alyssa Milano is correct, Glenn Greenwald is wrong. What a fucking world we live in.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Thank all the gods.... Sessions is resigning. Good fucking riddance to that trash.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060237796835770368
> Totally Fake News. The President called on Jim Acosta. Acosta asked a question. The President answered the question. The President called on someone else. Acosta refused to relinquish the microphone and continued asking more questions. Then the other journalist began asking their question and Acosta stood back up and kept talking. How is that in any way acceptable? How is it unacceptable to criticize him for that kind of behavior?
> 
> Complete nonsense. Acosta should be banned from these press conferences. He's a disgrace to his profession and has no respect for his colleagues. He's more of a narcissist than Trump is.


Anyone defending Jim Acosta should have a look at the video I'll send now as an example. I'm not the biggest fan of Huckabee Sanders but she was very lenient towards him, allowing three questions including an interruption which was more of a statement than anything, which took up time away from other journalists who wanted to get their questions in and yet he STILL wanted to ask more. He was also blatantly trying to bait her into a more fiery response. The guy is not only a partisan hack but as you said, has no respect for people also in his profession. He is all about trying to feed his own ego.






Here's the video I was referring to. Honestly she handled it well all things considered because he was an inconsiderate piece of shit, particularly to other journalists. Three fucking questions in a row and he still wasn't satisfied.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> The American press is utter dross, it really is the lowest of the low. I rag on the BBC a lot, but sweet jesus its nothing compared to what I see from Fox, MSNBC or CNN et al.


Yeah that's are press jumping to conclusions before the facts are even out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> Anyone defending Jim Acosta should have a look at the video I'll send now as an example. I'm not the biggest fan of Huckabee Sanders but she was very lenient towards him, allowing three questions including an interruption which was more of a statement than anything, which took up time away from other journalists who wanted to get their questions in and yet he STILL wanted to ask more. He was also blatantly trying to bait her into a more fiery response. The guy is not only a partisan hack but as you said, has no respect for people also in his profession. He is all about trying to feed his own ego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the video I was referring to. Honestly she handled it well all things considered because he was an inconsiderate piece of shit, particularly to other journalists. Three fucking questions in a row and he still wasn't satisfied.


You are such a hypocrite, you bash Bernie Sanders for him letting those two black lives matter woman take his mic and speak, yet when Acosta keeps trying to take and tries to keep is mic, you bash him. 

We all know if he let her take the mic away from him the first time, you would have made fun of him for letting her take it away from him.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are such a hypocrite, *you bash Bernie Sanders for him letting those two black lives matter woman take his mic and speak*, yet when Acosta keeps trying to take and tries to keep is mic, you bash him.
> 
> We all know if he let her take the mic away from him the first time, you would have made fun of him for letting her take it away from him.


?????

I think you are mistaking me for someone else BM, I've never bashed Bernie for that. In fact if I recall, I bashed the two Black Lives Matter activists for taking over his platform and being selfish bitches to talk over him and everybody else about their own issues when Bernie has actually been a supporter of BLM and their cause.

I don't blame Bernie for that at all. That was all on the two idiots who took over his platform and refused to get off the stage.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> ?????
> 
> I think you are mistaking me for someone else BM, I've never bashed Bernie for that. In fact if I recall, I bashed the two Black Lives Matter activists for taking over his platform and being selfish bitches to talk over him and everybody else about their own issues when Bernie has actually been a supporter of BLM and their cause.
> 
> I don't blame Bernie for that at all. That was all on the two idiots who took over his platform and refused to get off the stage.


Oh my bad, I thought I was replying to CP LOL

You were quoting his post, and I mistakenly read that as his post.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The situations aren't comparable at all. Jim Acosta was one of many reporters in a press conference yet chose to speak out of turn and interrupt people. He had no right to keep the microphone or ask any more questions. Bernie would've been well within his rights to keep his microphone and have security haul the people interrupting his event the hell out of there, which is what Trump would've done. Instead he just let his event get taken over like a cuck. :lol If a man doesn't even stand up for himself, how can you expect him to stand up for his country?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The situations aren't comparable at all. Jim Acosta was one of many reporters in a press conference yet chose to speak out of turn and interrupt people. He had no right to keep the microphone or ask any more questions. Bernie would've been well within his rights to keep his microphone and have security haul the people interrupting his event the hell out of there, which is what Trump would've done. Instead he just let his event get taken over like a cuck. :lol If a man doesn't even stand up for himself, how can you expect him to stand up for his country?


Yes, they are comparable, he was asking a follow-up question but Trump was being a child, but you keep proving your double standards, you are not a serious person.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes, they are comparable, he was asking a follow-up question but Trump was being a child, but you keep proving your double standards, you are not a serious person.


Asking a follow-up. :lol While another reporter who was actually called on was trying to ask a question. Remarkable.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Asking a follow-up. :lol While another reporter who was actually called on was trying to ask a question. Remarkable.


Trump didn't want to answer so he called on someone else because he is a baby


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Jesus christ who cares, if you keep on trying to ask questions or jump in once you've had your turn then it's no surprise or big thing if you get told to fuck off. BM you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

I think they should all just take numbers like at the deli and then a counter ticks over to their number and they get, like, 30 seconds. Someone tweet Trump my awesome idea.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Jim Acosta has had his WH pass revoked.  Completely justified given his unprofessional conduct during the press briefing today.

Unfortunately the WH has accused him of placing his hands on the female intern who tried to take his mic way. I don't think the video supports that interpretation of events and it was a mistake to use that as a reason. His conduct alone should've been more than enough justification. Now he gets to say (correctly) that the WH is lying about him. WH gave up some high ground here for no reason.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Acosta's Twitter: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060331687303958529

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060332691143491584

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060334166083059712

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060336119315873792


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Jim Acosta has had his WH pass revoked.  Completely justified given his unprofessional conduct during the press briefing today.
> 
> Unfortunately the WH has accused him of placing his hands on the female intern who tried to take his mic way. I don't think the video supports that interpretation of events and it was a mistake to use that as a reason. His conduct alone should've been more than enough justification. Now he gets to say (correctly) that the WH is lying about him. WH gave up some high ground here for no reason.


LOL at calling Jim unprofessional when no one acts more unprofessional than Trump. Jim was asking tough questions and Trump was crying like a baby about it. So the fascist that Trump is, won't let him in the WH anymore. Trump once again showing how he is against the first amendment and freedom of the press

But keep defending that.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060331361532170241


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Foolishly, I thought the midterms coming to its conclusion meant all this was going to die down. I don't care for Tucker Carlson because he's a human troll but I'm against showing up at people's homes, especially where children are present to harass them.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



The Woman said:


> Foolishly, I thought the midterms coming to its conclusion meant all this was going to die down. I don't care for Tucker Carlson because he's a human troll but I'm against showing up at people's homes, especially where children are present to harass them.


 Agree 100 percent



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at calling Jim unprofessional when no one acts more unprofessional than Trump. Jim was asking tough questions and Trump was crying like a baby about it. So the fascist that Trump is, won't let him in the WH anymore. Trump once again showing how he is against the first amendment and freedom of the press
> 
> But keep defending that.


 @CamillePunk is just being his normal hypocritical self


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are such a hypocrite, you bash Bernie Sanders for him letting those two black lives matter woman take his mic and speak, yet when Acosta keeps trying to take and tries to keep is mic, you bash him.
> 
> We all know if he let her take the mic away from him the first time, you would have made fun of him for letting her take it away from him.


Jim Acosta wasn't the one running for president though, Sanders was. There are other journalists and reporters who want to ask the president questions as well and we know very well Jim Acosta would question Trump for 10 hours every day if he was given the opportunity . Some how whats missed in all this is that he put his hands on a female intern and lied about it. Some how people aren't more outraged by that.

I don't care one way or another about Jim Acosta but the white house was looking for a reason to suspend him and he gave them one. That's on him.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

What have I been hypocritical about? Example please. Provide conflicting quotes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Jim Acosta wasn't the one running for president though, Sanders was. There are other journalists and reporters who want to ask the president questions as well and we know very well Jim Acosta would question Trump for 10 hours every day if he was given the opportunity . Some how whats missed in all this is that he put his hands on a female intern and lied about it. Some how people aren't more outraged by that.
> 
> I don't care one way or another about Jim Acosta but *the white house was looking for a reason to suspend him* and he gave them one. That's on him.


No that is on the WH.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060331361532170241


Funny they use the term scumbag when the only scumbags are the leftists who are harassing Tucker at his home where his wife and kids are present.

Utterly deranged these people are.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'm sure The Hardcore Show will be along any moment to lament about how liberals don't want people who don't think like them in the country.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Something stands out to me is this lazy generalising about the left and liberals by the usual suspects here - apparently they're all violent towards others who don't believe what they believe, they call everyone racist who isn't left etc. 

It's no different to me saying Rightists are all racist, dumb, gun-crazy backwards idiots who don't want people from other countries in their country. Plenty of that does go on yes, and that isn't right either.

Yet not many people seem to recognise their double standards. It's just lazy at the end of the day and brings the bar down lower just as the media does, just as the President does and virtually everyone else in Washington.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Why the fuck you going to someones house? 

Just stop already.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Why the fuck you going to someones house?
> 
> Just stop already.


Yeah its creepy, and Tucker Carlson isn't Richard Spencer for that matter either.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The House is in the hands of the Democrats, the GOP has no one to blame but themselves. The biggest broken promise since "Read my lips, no new taxes" came in the form of the non-repeal of the Affordable Care Act. For nearly eight years, the mantra was "Give us the House, the Senate, and the White House, and we will repeal Obamacare." The people gave them all three, and Obamacare is still the law of the land with no plans anytime soon to take up repeal. (And spare me the "But, McCain..., those bills that were introduced were not repeal nor anywhere close as well as I don't want to hear "The mandate is gone" when that doesn't change the fact that the ACA is still here). 

Yes, under Trump he gained seats in the Senate but the map favored the GOP to hang on to the Senate. However, I will lay part of the blame squarely at his feet for his lack of leadership. Yes, Congress is absolutely pathetic these days and I wonder what they are actually doing to earn their salaries when very little is getting done. At the same time, he could have stepped forward and been hands-on to an extent on what he wants, rather then sit back and let the shitshow commence. That is on him. 

Get ready for two more years of nothing getting done...unless Trump suddenly cozies up to Nancy again to try to work stuff out. 



The Woman said:


> Foolishly, I thought the midterms coming to its conclusion meant all this was going to die down. I don't care for Tucker Carlson because he's a human troll but I'm against showing up at people's homes, especially where children are present to harass them.


We've only just begun...it's going to get even crazier before it's all over. Leadership has encouraged this on both Dem and Rep sides with the rhetoric. It's not a new thing and it didn't just magically happen with Trump becoming POTUS, mind you...but we've been building to this point. For every incendiary Trump tweet, we have Maxine Waters telling people to get up in their faces and Eric Holder saying that when they go low to kick them. Someone is going to get hurt at some point, then what happens? 

So, buckle yourself in, it's going to be a bumpy ride.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-govern...Q58o_5X9EZLXWh4xB_d-v5i6x55jqRVKJtfp9BW_08HgM



> The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has paid cash incentives of over £2,000 to lap-dancing bars and similar establishments to hire young unemployed people aged 18-24 as part of its Youth Contract scheme.
> 
> Strip clubs and massage parlours that offer full-time jobs to young people for at least 26 weeks can claim up to £2,275 – so long as the young person is neither a "performer" nor "performing sexual acts".
> 
> I do not think parents would welcome this government-sponsored recruitment into the sex industry
> 
> Labour MP Fiona Mactaggart, who unearthed details of the payments and has now raised the matter in Parliament, has demanded to know how many people employed in such establishments go on to become sex workers.
> 
> She claims to have met women who started out working in cloakrooms who went on to become prostitutes. In a Sunday Times interview she said: "I do not think parents would welcome this government-sponsored recruitment into the sex industry."
> 
> The DWP says young people are only guided towards working in sex establishments if they specifically ask. Since 2012 jobs with a sexual purpose have been banned from government websites, though "ancillary" jobs within such establishments are still available.
> 
> A recent DWP document listed jobs within the adult entertainment industry where employers can receive government subsidies to employ the young unemployed:
> 
> those involved in the sale, manufacture, distribution and display of sex related products;
> auxiliary workers in lap/pole dancing clubs – e.g. bar staff, door staff, receptionists or cleaners;
> auxiliary workers in strip clubs – e.g. bar staff, door staff, receptionists or cleaners;
> auxiliary workers in saunas/massage parlours e.g. bar staff, door staff, receptionists or clearers;
> glamour mode photographers;
> web-cam operators;
> TV camera operators, sound technicians, producers/directors for adult channels on digital TV;
> TV camera operators, sound technicians, producers/directors for pornographic films.
> 
> A DWP spokesman said: "This Government took action to ensure jobs in the adult industry which might exploit jobseekers were not advertised through Jobcentre Plus. We also ensured that to be eligible for our schemes jobs must not exploit vulnerable jobseekers."
> 
> However, ads of a more sinister nature do sometimes slip through the net. In December 2013, an ad for a girl to become a hooker briefly appeared on the Universal Jobmatch area of the Direct Gov website:
> 
> "Female worker wanted to go out with guys maybe for evening or have full on sex. This would be better if you was (sic) single and be able to work at your own pace. Looks and race .unimportant. You will need a mobile phone. No experience necessary."



This is an utterly bizarre government incentive, especially for the Conservatives. Is this really something the government should be involved with?


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






:bean

This is one of the reasons there was no blue wave.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The GOP relied heavily identity politics and Trump's celebrity while the Democrats heavily outspent the GOP and lost high profile state races unaffected by gerrymandering. The talking heads still continue to bitch about their usual talking points while ignoring this. The dissonance seems to be largely ignored by both echo chambers in favour of the usual blaming of candidates not being conservative/progressive enough or blaming the national parties for not doing enough. Finding posters here parroting the same talking points while not realising the irony when they like to bash the MSM for having a groupthink is just funny to me.

It was a mixed bag mid terms. Trump outperformed historical losses by the president's party during mid terms. Trumpists will look to this as a positive. Non-Trumpists will point to the GOP losing the House even in a supposedly vibrant economy as a rebuke of Trump. GOP won back senate seats in red states they were expected to win. But they also lost a not insignificant number of governor seats. Trump gained more power in the Senate but lost lapdogs like Nunes in the House willing to do his bidding. Trump can win re-election with bi-partisan bills in the house, but could also risk losing his base if he don't follow through with many of the controversial policies after 4 years.

Nobody can be too happy, nor too upset over the results. Except maybe Trump because he has Pelosi again to bash. Or Beto's potential presidential run in 2020.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> https://www.kxan.com/news/investiga...-wins-re-election-from-a-jail-cell/1577793977
> 
> *Texas House member wins re-election from a jail cell
> *
> AUSTIN (KXAN) — A re-election celebration is underway in Pod 2 of the Montgomery County Jail after inmate number 232573 claimed victory in Texas House District 27. That inmate is known as Rep. Ron Reynolds, D-Missouri City, to the people on the outside.
> 
> Reynolds was unopposed in the race for District 27 and the latest vote totals show Reynolds garnered 47,305 votes in Tuesday's election.
> 
> Reynolds was booked into the county jail on Sept. 7. He's serving a year-long sentence after a 2015 conviction on five misdemeanor counts of using a middleman to chase ambulances in order to solicit clients for Reynolds’ law firm.
> 
> After the 2015 conviction, a county judge handed down the jail sentence to the sitting lawmaker, but Reynolds spent the last three years appealing the conviction. Reynolds’ law license was suspended on May 2, 2016.
> 
> Since the convictions were misdemeanors, Reynolds did not have to resign from office. Unless Reynolds' sentence is reduced, he will likely be sitting in a jail cell when the legislature reconvenes in January 2019. Reynolds could miss the entire first year of the 86th legislative session if he's not freed before Sept. 7, 2019.


"America is a republic with _informed_ voters who know what they're doing therefore they can be trusted to choose our leaders" 

:mj4


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Jimmy Dore on fire today


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> "America is a republic with _informed_ voters who know what they're doing therefore they can be trusted to choose our leaders"
> 
> :mj4


*Dennis Hof, the brothel owner who died last month, wins election*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> *Dennis Hof, the brothel owner who died last month, wins election*


I knew about that one lol.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060534163361746944

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060537809424007168

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060524619906670592

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060539942105804801

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060509741598818307

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060358746453340161

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060548577733328898


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Democrats: Jeff Sessions is a racist. Fire him. 
Also Democrats: How dare you fire Jeff Sessions. You are definitely hiding something. 

"Opposition party" :mj4


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> BREAKING: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fell in her office at the Supreme Court last evening, per the Court. Tests showed that she fractured three ribs on her left side and she has been hospitalized for observation and treatment.


Maybe we shouldn't let 80 year people continue to be judges?

- Vic


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The vultures are already out there giddily talking about Trump replacing Ginsburg. An elderly person fell, for fuck's sake. How about showing some decency and wishing her a speedy recovery first before showing her the door? A bunch of greedy, opportunistic geeks, they are.

:bunk


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> The House is in the hands of the Democrats, the GOP has no one to blame but themselves. The biggest broken promise since "Read my lips, no new taxes" came in the form of the non-repeal of the Affordable Care Act. For nearly eight years, the mantra was "Give us the House, the Senate, and the White House, and we will repeal Obamacare." The people gave them all three, and Obamacare is still the law of the land with no plans anytime soon to take up repeal. (And spare me the "But, McCain..., those bills that were introduced were not repeal nor anywhere close as well as I don't want to hear "The mandate is gone" when that doesn't change the fact that the ACA is still here).
> 
> Yes, under Trump he gained seats in the Senate but the map favored the GOP to hang on to the Senate. However, I will lay part of the blame squarely at his feet for his lack of leadership. Yes, Congress is absolutely pathetic these days and I wonder what they are actually doing to earn their salaries when very little is getting done. At the same time, he could have stepped forward and been hands-on to an extent on what he wants, rather then sit back and let the shitshow commence. That is on him.
> 
> Get ready for two more years of nothing getting done...unless Trump suddenly cozies up to Nancy again to try to work stuff out.
> 
> 
> 
> *We've only just begun...it's going to get even crazier before it's all over. Leadership has encouraged this on both Dem and Rep sides with the rhetoric. It's not a new thing and it didn't just magically happen with Trump becoming POTUS, mind you...but we've been building to this point. For every incendiary Trump tweet, we have Maxine Waters telling people to get up in their faces and Eric Holder saying that when they go low to kick them. Someone is going to get hurt at some point, then what happens?
> 
> So, buckle yourself in, it's going to be a bumpy ride.*


Michelle Obama had the best of intentions with the appeal to better angels but two years later, there's so much turning of the other cheek you can do. I don't condone harassing people at their homes or targeting kids. But speaking for myself, I will not lay down and die for anyone. I'm going to put up a fight. I'm a chill person but for the most part but this administration and some in the GOP have gotten off on antagonizing people, disrupting lives and just baiting. Case in point, the caravan crisis which is now not that big of a deal and questioning birthright citizenship.


To be clear, the immigration crisis does need to be addressed. I have a family member who has now been cleared to come to the U.S after 30 years. She did everything right, got in line and waited for her turn. So yeah, it's frustrating to see others breaking the rules but I don't hate anyone seeking asylum and a better life. Being nice has its limits. There's only so much one person can take before "when they go low..." just sounds like noise. 

With that said, I hope Democrats resist the urge to go complete tin foil with the investigations. Just serve as a check and balance; challenge Trump where need be and do your best not to get drawn into the mud because Trump, for all his faults, is a genuine fighter. If you don't have the stomach or fire in the belly for it, at least show that you can govern as adults. That is a low bar. 

I prefer a mixed government rather than one party having complete rule. But given the last few days, I have no real hope that the gridlock will ease. It's already intensified.

I just thought with the holidays coming up, the climate would slightly improve but as you alluded, the bumpy ride just may be starting.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> The vultures are already out there giddily talking about Trump replacing Ginsburg. An elderly person fell, for fuck's sake. How about showing some decency and wishing her a speedy recovery first before showing her the door? A bunch of greedy, opportunistic geeks, they are.


Like the same vultures fear mongering on social media about her replacement? I'm sure that person will be accused of sexual assault from 30 years ago too. 

- Vic


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060580985543315456

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060572956320038912

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060573940182081536

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060561122732969989

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060525302915440646


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'm surprised the Yamiche Alcindor/Trump confrontation isn't getting more play. 

Yamiche is a total pro though so her not making a big deal about it is one reason I like her.



CHRIS CHRISTIE Attorney General :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Christie will do whatever to stay relevant basically. He's not a mover/shaker kind of a guy. At least I don't think he's going to be a massive road block against marijuana unless Trump himself is - which I don't think he is anymore. 

Christie seems to be softening up on Marijuana as well, but who knows. These people don't really give away too much of what they believe unless they have actual power to do something about it and then comes out the personal feelings and they act according to whims and not what the electorate wants. Christie is definitely one of those guys.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060894549759922181

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060882098955927552

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060901095495688198

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060887228597981184

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060685920662372352


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Actress-turned-activist Alyssa Milano won’t speak at the next Women’s March unless its organizers condemn controversial, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
> 
> Women’s March organizers Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory have been tied to Farrakhan in the past. Mallory even refused to denounce Farrakhan after attending a speech in which he said, "The powerful Jews are my enemy.”
> 
> Sarsour went on to defend Mallory in a lengthy Facebook post, declaring that she would “not sit back while a strong, bold, unapologetic, committed Black woman who risks her life every day to speak truth to power and organize and mobilize movements is questioned, berated and abused.”
> 
> The Women’s March eventually condemned Farrakhan’s comments in a statement back in March, but it wasn’t good enough for Milano.
> 
> “Any time that there is any bigotry or anti-Semitism in that respect, it needs to be called out and addressed. I’m disappointed in the leadership of the Women’s March that they haven’t done it adequately,” Milano told The Advocate.
> 
> Sarsour, a pro-Palestinian activist, has repeatedly praised Farrakhan and refused to condemn him. Mallory called him the “GOAT” or “Greatest of all time,” and served as a national organizer for his “Justice or Else” rally in 2015.
> 
> Milano told The Advocate she noticed their views regarding Farrakhan and would turn down a chance to speak at the next event if Sarsour and Mallory were still involved.
> 
> “I would say no at this point. Unfortunate that none of them have come forward against [Farrakhan] at this point. Or even given a really good reason why to support,” Milano said.
> 
> Farrakhan has also said “white folks are going down” and refers to Jewish people as termites.
> Why won't Twitter remove Louis Farrakhan's hate speech?Video
> 
> Farrakhan is well known for his anti-Semitic, homophobic and controversial views. The height of his prominence came when he organized the 1995 Million Man March in Washington, a symbol of black pride and empowerment. He made headlines recently be saying "Death to Israel" in Farsi and was accused of substituting "America" for "Israel” in the official language of Iran.
> 
> His controversial rhetoric goes back decades but prominent Democrats have been hesitant to denounce him. In June, Twitter took away Farrakhan's verified status after he posted a video in which he ranted about "the Satanic Jew and the Synagogue of Satan." Twitter is frequently under fire for allowing Farrakhan to have an account at all.
> 
> The next Women’s March is scheduled for Jan. 19.
> 
> “We are outraged. We are organized. They forgot that 5 million women lit the world on fire two years ago,” the Women’s March website says. “We’re going to remind them when we flood the streets of Washington, D.C., and cities across the globe.”


https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alyssa-milano-wont-speak-at-womens-march-unless-organizers-condemn-louis-farrakhan
Love when feminists go at each other.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Florida trying to rig the election for the Dems. Violating laws that ballots must be counted within 30 minutes of close, not disclosing how many ballots they had left to count, same county that was caught destroying Republican votes in 2016 and supposedly video evidence of personal vehicles delivering boxes of ballots which is illegal. All these extra votes came in at an 84% rate of Dems. Then some official tweeted out some more info and places to drop off uncounted ballots which I guess is vote tampering. 

Trump tweeted about it and now Florida said they're done counting and it's over. What a joke. Looks like Scott Walker and the Arizona senate race may also be in similar circumstances.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060909506559987712
*I hope there's not an ugly situation overseas between Trump and Acosta*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Florida trying to rig the election for the Dems. Violating laws that ballots must be counted within 30 minutes of close, not disclosing how many ballots they had left to count, same county that was caught destroying Republican votes in 2016 and supposedly video evidence of personal vehicles delivering boxes of ballots which is illegal. All these extra votes came in at an 84% rate of Dems. Then some official tweeted out some more info and places to drop off uncounted ballots which I guess is vote tampering.
> 
> Trump tweeted about it and now Florida said they're done counting and it's over. What a joke. Looks like Scott Walker and the Arizona senate race may also be in similar circumstances.


Dems are rigging the election by counting all the votes? 

UM all the votes are supposed to be counted.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Speaking about fearmongering






The President just used the military to win a mid term for his party.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Maybe Rick Scott will be the one that finally breaks the incredibly corrupt vote-fraud machine that is the Democratic Party apparatus in Broward and Palm Beach counties :draper2

Update: Brenda Snipes, Broward County election supervisor whose office a court found illegally destroyed ballots in 2016, is refusing to comply with a judge's order that the election board no longer carry out its work "finding" and "counting" ballots essentially in secret with no supervision whatsoever. 

Somebody scared she's going to jail.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> "America is a republic with _informed_ voters who know what they're doing therefore they can be trusted to choose our leaders"
> 
> :mj4


But MUH DEMOCRACY


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Voters in San Francisco approved a new corporate tax on Tuesday that will raise $300 million a year from the city’s largest companies and direct that money toward homeless services.
> 
> Proposition C, as it was known to voters, is the largest corporate tax increase in San Francisco history. The measure passed with 59.9 percent of the vote.
> 
> While the tax is a local issue, it gained national attention after its most vocal billionaire supporter, Marc Benioff, founder and co-chief executive officer of Salesforce, began to spar on social media with other tech titans, including Jack Dorsey, CEO of Square and Twitter.
> 
> Benioff, a native San Franciscan who has his name on a children’s hospital in the city, donated more than $7.8 million in personal and corporate money to the campaign to pass Proposition C. He celebrated the win on Tuesday night, tweeting: “Thank you, San Francisco.”
> 
> While everyone involved expressed their support for helping the homeless, Dorsey and other tech titans said they did not believe Proposition C was the right way to do it.
> 
> The city’s complex tax code means that Proposition C will hit financial service companies, such as Dorsey’s Square and competitor Stripe, disproportionately to other large San Francisco companies.
> 
> Salesforce, the largest employer in San Francisco, would pay around $10 million per year, according to estimates, while Square, which is one-third the size of Salesforce, would pay more.
> 
> “We’re happy to pay our taxes. We just want to be treated fairly with respect to our peer companies, many of whom are 2-10x larger than us,” Dorsey wrote on Oct. 19. “Otherwise we don’t know how to practically grow in the city. That’s heartbreaking for us as we love SF and want to continue to help build it.”
> Recommended
> For the last doctors of the Santa Fe school shooting, the world has moved on — but they haven't
> Customers give doughnut store owner the gift of time
> 
> With Proposition C getting the thumbs up from voters, companies with more than $50 million in gross annual receipts will now be taxed on any gross annual receipt revenue in San Francisco. The city already has a gross receipts tax, which is usually calculated by taking a company's global revenue and multiplying it by an "apportionment percentage," which is based on their business category. Depending on their category, businesses could pay an additional tax of between .175 percent to .69 percent.
> 
> Patrick Collison, co-founder and CEO of Stripe, called Proposition C “well intentioned” but said it “comes with no systemic changes or effective accountability.”
> 
> Even the city’s mayor, London Breed, who ran on a platform of solving homelessness, opposed Proposition C due to the lack of accountability and controls available in her office.
> 
> Funding for homeless services has “increased dramatically in recent years with no discernible improvement in conditions,” she said in a statement. “Before we double the tax bill overnight, San Franciscans deserve accountability for the money they are already paying.


https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/san-francisco-s-biggest-companies-now-forced-pay-homeless-tax-n933391


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Friendly Ant

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

With Gab getting dropped by other companies, Tommy Robinson being banned from Paypal, is it possible in the future that businesses have one of two status' - 

Left Wing Business & Right Wing Business, And you'll only be allowed to do business with companies whose politics align with yours?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


>


Daily Beast pretends to be leftist when it's basically shilling for Hillary and establishment/corporate democrats. 

And running this headline kinda seems like a dog whistle. Unintentionally so but they're actually appealing to the more conservative "it's ok to be white" kind of voters. 

Totally out of character for the Beast.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Friendly Ant said:


> With Gab getting dropped by other companies, Tommy Robinson being banned from Paypal, is it possible in the future that businesses have one of two status' -
> 
> Left Wing Business & Right Wing Business, And you'll only be allowed to do business with companies whose politics align with yours?


There is no such thing as a leftist corporation.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

reap calm down


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Daily Beast pretends to be leftist when it's basically shilling for Hillary and establishment/corporate democrats.
> 
> And running this headline kinda seems like a dog whistle. Unintentionally so but they're actually appealing to the more conservative "it's ok to be white" kind of voters.
> 
> Totally out of character for the Beast.


As Jimmy pointed out though, Chelsea Clinton is on the Daily Beast's board, so its more of a hit on Bernie because he opposes her mother.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six...0ZQ0DHE6iktOI9y5DdUpkOF8puH3Qf0GoNf2VZTJMHmL8



> Labour activists were condemned for inviting a known extremist preacher to an anti-racism rally.
> 
> Shakeel Begg, an imam, was listed as a speaker at a Lewisham Labour Against Racism meeting on Tuesday, alongside two Labour MPs, local activists, trade unionists and students.
> 
> The rally in southeast London aimed to “challenge the hostile environment”, “stop Tommy Robinson’s far-right allies” and “oppose Islamophobia and antisemitism”. It was attended by many of the area’s prominent Labour officials.
> 
> Mr Begg, an imam at the Lewisham Islamic Centre, was declared “an extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions” by the High Court in 2016. The court ruled that he “recently promoted and encouraged religious violence by telling Muslims that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed”. Mr Begg had accused the BBC of libel for describing him as an extremist.
> 
> David Toube, of the counterextremism think tank Quilliam, told The Sun: “The presence of a Labour MP on a platform which includes a cleric who has been found by a British court to be an extremist plays into the hands of anti-Muslim bigots.”
> 
> Tom Wilson, a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society think tank, added: “There can be no excuse for any political party working with Begg. It is not only unacceptable to give him a public platform, but it is dangerous for extremists to be legitimised in this way.”
> 
> Mr Begg was listed on the programme alongside Janet Daby, the MP for Lewisham East, and Vicky Foxcroft, the MP for Lewisham Deptford. Ms Daby did not attend the event, The Times understands.
> 
> Ashraf Dabous, another Imam at the Lewisham Islamic Centre wrote on Facebook: “I have witnessed the admiration of Imam Shakeel by many senior figures within Lewisham and London. Imam Shakeel has led many discussions about standing up against oppression regardless of who the oppressed are and their background or faith.”
> 
> A Labour spokesman said: “Communities and faith groups coming together is an essential part of the fight against the scourge of racism.”


So Labour invited an Islamic Extremist/Hate Preacher to their anti-racism rally.

I took the time to do some digging into the man mentioned as the original source I found this story from was one I was unfamiliar with and it's legitimate. Check out this BBC article from 2016 detailing the libel case Mr Begg took against them:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37798201



> An influential imam has lost a libel action against the BBC after a judge ruled he had promoted violence.
> 
> London-based Shakeel Begg sued after being accused on the Sunday Politics show of espousing extreme beliefs.
> 
> The judge said Lewisham Islamic Centre's chief imam had hidden his true views behind a cloak of respectability.
> 
> *Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said he "clearly promotes and encourages violence in support of Islam and espouses a series of extremist Islamic positions".
> 
> "On occasions when it has suited him…he has shed the cloak of respectability and revealed the horns of extremism."*
> 
> A spokesman for the BBC welcomed the ruling against the imam who now faces an enormous legal bill.
> 
> Imam Begg is extremely influential among followers of hardline conservative Islam in the UK.
> 
> He has been involved in inter-faith work with Jewish and Christian leaders but has also faced accusations of extremism, including supporting organisations that have campaigned on behalf of suspected terrorists.
> 
> He personally appealed to the self-styled Islamic State group to spare the British hostage Alan Henning - a sign of his theological credibility within their branch of Islam.
> 
> 'Jekyll and Hyde'
> In November 2013, BBC presenter Andrew Neil alleged on the Sunday Politics that the imam had said that jihad was the greatest of deeds.
> 
> Jihad typically refers to a personal struggle to do good - but violent extremists use it to refer to fighting holy war.
> 
> Despite the imam's protestations during the libel trial, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said four of his speeches showed he had promoted such violence and two that he had espoused extremist positions.
> 
> *"Shakeel Begg, is something of a Jekyll and Hyde character," he said.
> 
> "He appears to present one face to the general, local and inter-faith community and another to particular Muslim and other receptive audiences. The former face is benign, tolerant and ecumenical.
> 
> "The latter face is ideologically extreme and intolerant."
> 
> In one speech in 2006, Imam Begg encouraged a student audience to fight in the Palestinian territories. Two years later he praised Muslims who had travelled abroad to fight enemies of Islam.
> 
> A third speech outside the maximum security Belmarsh Prison in south-east London, which holds some of the most dangerous terrorism convicts in the country, was described by the judge as "particularly sinister".*
> 
> *He said: "The various core extremist messages which emerge from the claimant's speeches and utterances would, in my view, have been quite clear to the audiences.
> 
> "The claimant's ostensible cloak of respectability is likely to have made his [extremist] message in these speeches all the more compelling and seductive. For this reason, therefore, his messages would have been all the more effective and dangerous.
> 
> "It is all too easy for someone in the claimant's position of power and influence as an Imam to plant the seed of Islamic extremism in a young mind, which is then liable to be propagated on the internet."
> 
> A spokesman for the BBC said: "We were right to stand by the journalism of the Sunday Politics. The judge has concluded, based on the evidence, that Imam Begg has preached religious violence and an extremist worldview in his remarks."*


I've bolded the important parts, it seems as though this Imam has been playing two roles, one of the respectable religious leader who does work with other leaders of Christian and Jewish faith, the other a propagator of religious violence and extremism. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The fact that one of the major parties in the UK saw fit to invite such a character to one of their rallies is concerning to say the least.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six...0ZQ0DHE6iktOI9y5DdUpkOF8puH3Qf0GoNf2VZTJMHmL8
> 
> 
> 
> So Labour invited an Islamic Extremist/Hate Preacher to their anti-racism rally.
> 
> I took the time to do some digging into the man mentioned as the original source I found this story from was one I was unfamiliar with and it's legitimate. Check out this BBC article from 2016 detailing the libel case Mr Begg took against them:
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37798201
> 
> 
> 
> I've bolded the important parts, it seems as though this Imam has been playing two roles, one of the respectable religious leader who does work with other leaders of Christian and Jewish faith, the other a propagator of religious violence and extremism. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
> 
> The fact that one of the major parties in the UK saw fit to invite such a character to one of their rallies is concerning to say the least.


From what I have seen Labour has been shooting itself in the foot as often as the Democrats over here have.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> From what I have seen Labour has been shooting itself in the foot as often as the Democrats over here have.


I wouldn't say as often as the Democrats but yeah, they have been. Particularly on the issue of anti-semitism.

To be honest though, this isn't the first time we've seen something disturbing with Labour in regards to Islamic extremism. I would almost go as far as to say they have a blind spot for it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Corbyn has done his best to fuck himself over. I'll be glad when he's gone.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> I wouldn't say as often as the Democrats but yeah, they have been. Particularly on the issue of anti-semitism.
> 
> To be honest though, this isn't the first time we've seen something disturbing with Labour in regards to Islamic extremism. I would almost go as far as to say they have a blind spot for it.


It's like the women's march with Linda Sarsour, she's a completely involved with anti-semitism. Yet she's praised by the "Left". Standing with Islam is one of the dumbest things "Leftists" have done and now they cannot back out without looking bad.

Think by Islamic standards he's not a wolf in sheep's clothing, there's some term for it that pretty much encourages this behavior. 

Anti-Israel sentiment has been building up so anti-semitism going along with it isn't all that surprising really. The fact the party didn't even bother to look at this guy's history is startling.. or maybe they did and they just didn't care.



Friendly Ant said:


> With Gab getting dropped by other companies, Tommy Robinson being banned from Paypal, is it possible in the future that businesses have one of two status' -
> 
> Left Wing Business & Right Wing Business, And you'll only be allowed to do business with companies whose politics align with yours?


It's not really about Politics but about control. People predicted this would happen when Alex Jones was a target because he was hit by several different platforms at once, all who have ties to each other. Right now they're targeting "bad" people who everyone will cheer for to be deplatformed and silenced. Gab being hit isn't about what is allowed to be talked about there but killing any competition for YouTube and Twitter, just like targeting Pewdiepie and other Social Media personalities because their reach was far better than much of the MSM.

These companies aren't Left, they're Authoritative "Left". Liberals wouldn't be silencing people, nor hitting people financially because it would go against what they stand for. Look at Google, the most "Left" company yet if you follow any of the insider videos etc talking about them, they're awful. It's all about appearances.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> On Wednesday night, protesters identified with a fringe group gathered outside the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson, chanting, "Racist scumbag, leave town."
> This happened amid an election in which exit polls show three out of four Americans think the country is becoming more divided.
> Look, I believe in protests. Sometimes that's the only way the marginalized can get their voices heard by those in power. To be clear, in my career as a community organizer, I organized many confrontational protests. I understand where the anger comes from — I feel it myself.
> And yet, I'm wrestling with a feeling of deep discomfort as I watch the videos from outside Tucker Carlson's D.C. home. CNN reported that "Smash Racism D.C., which calls itself an 'anti-fascist,' or Antifa, group, claimed responsibility for the protest on social media."
> 
> "In videos uploaded to Twitter by the group on Wednesday, participants were heard saying 'Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!,' " CNN reported
> Cruz swarmed by protesters at DC restaurant
> 
> Cruz swarmed by protesters at DC restaurant 01:50
> This goes beyond protesting to harassing and threatening.
> Indeed, Antifa is an extreme, violent fringe movement on the left that does far, far more harm in every sense than good and whose bad behavior has been repeatedly used to smear the entire progressive left.
> And happening in this moment, this protest falls into a general decline in the civility and respect we're showing one another on other sides of the political aisle.
> Now I'll say here what I've said before: interpersonal niceness isn't the same thing as dignity, equality and respect in policies and systems, and I would never privilege the former over the latter.
> I've always had a good relationship with Tucker Carlson and find him to be one of the more thoughtful people on the right. Also, whenever I think of him, I think about this video that Buzzfeed made about how whenever liberals are talking, Tucker makes a face like they're eating mayonnaise straight out of a jar. This cracks me up. And when I told Tucker about it a few weeks ago, he said he hadn't seen it but the idea cracked him up, too.
> Still, I want to be clear that I find many of the policies and ideas that Tucker Carlson appears to support deeply cruel and hateful, and the way he expresses those beliefs -- and treats his opponents on air -- is often cruel as well.
> Video shows McConnell get heckled at restaurant
> 
> Video shows McConnell get heckled at restaurant 01:28
> But here's the thing:
> I don't treat other people with dignity and respect and equality because they deserve it or even because they earn it. I treat other people with dignity and respect and equality because I believe that all people deserve dignity and respect and equality. No matter who they are, no matter what they believe, and importantly, no matter how they treat me. Because those are my values. That's why I'm a progressive.
> And I'm not going to let any amount of hate and nastiness on the right define my values or drag me down. "When they go low, we go high" isn't just a bumper sticker or a tactical choice. It's a moral conviction. I will not let the hate and cruelty of others make me hateful and cruel.
> Again, I've been all over the map on this myself and certainly see the reasons for people feeling not only righteously angry but also expressing hate over what Trump and his allies are doing, and wanting to fight back. And I am wary of false equivalences.
> 
> 
> 
> On issues from pollution to administration policies to immigration, the malign forces in our country find comfort and cover, to say the least, on Fox news. Politicians who support the forced separation of immigrant families at the border, for example -- small children literally being ripped out of their parents' arms -- seem hypocritical to complain about being bothered, say, at dinner in a restaurant. I get it, and I get the desire to protest in a way that feels commensurate with this new era of injustice.
> But at the same time, I'm going to try to be the change I want to see in the world -- which includes treating other people, leaders on the right and especially voters and followers on the right -- with the respect, equality and radical kindness that I want them to show, too. And just like I don't think their behavior should be the justification for my bad behavior, I don't want my behavior to be the excuse anyone cites for being even worse.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/opinions/protest-at-tucker-carlsons-home-went-too-far-kohn/index.html


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

What is happening with the caravan now? How about the troops deployed?

https://www.axios.com/american-troo...van-663f66d6-88d9-47d9-bc14-fa8606cde3aa.html



> The midterms are over. But the 5,600 American troops sent to the southern border with Mexico are "still going through the motions of an elaborate mission that appeared to be set into action by a commander in chief determined to get his supporters to the polls," the New York Times reports.
> 
> What's happening: Troops at the border are sleeping in tents that house 20 soldiers and have no electricity or air conditioning, with some suffering heat exhaustion within days of starting the mission. There's no mess hall — only pre-made "Ready-to-Eat" meals — and the only phone chargers available are attached to "a few generators that power spotlights around the living area." Department of Defense officials worry that if the number of troops increases to 15,000, the cost could be as high as $200 million


.

Imagine being forced to eat army ration for days or even weeks because your President is using you for a political stunt. Wonder if Uber eats delivers to the border? Probably would make the average solider want to vote the President and his party out in the next elections. :troll


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Department of Defense officials worry that if the number of troops increases to 15,000, *the cost could be as high as $200 million*


Where's the fiscal hawks at? :hmm


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Where's the fiscal hawks at? :hmm


Don't forget that for nationalists we are Rome being defended from the Barbarian horde therefore the cost of proteking us from the evil barbarian horde is justified.

I wonder when our government will start throwing military parades and building Colosseums. 

Gotta save da west.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Rome is on the Italian peninsula :cudi

Now if you're talking about the sacred soil of Rome, Georgia, or Rome, New York, or even the ghost town Rome, Morrow County, Ohio, or the other two Romes in Ohio...


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062144676822577152

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062163233308598272

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062151155701219330


> (CNN)Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema will win Arizona's US Senate race, defeating Republican Rep. Martha McSally and flipping a seat that had been in GOP hands for 24 years.
> 
> McSally conceded the hard-fought race on Monday night -- six days after the election -- as county-by-county tallies of mailed-in ballots continued to increase Sinema's lead.
> "I just called Kyrsten Sinema and congratulated her on becoming Arizona's first female senator after a hard-fought battle. I wish her all success as she represents Arizona in the Senate," McSally said in a video posted on Twitter Monday night.
> 
> Sinema's victory showed that Democrats are continuing to gain momentum in the rapidly diversifying Sun Belt and firmly places Arizona among the most important presidential and Senate battlegrounds.
> 
> The race was certain to deliver Arizona its first female senator. And it came at a time of major change in the state's delegation.
> Sen. Jeff Flake, a critic of President Donald Trump's incendiary rhetoric, opted to retire rather than face an all-but-certain loss to a Trump-aligned Republican in a primary -- opening up the seat on this year's ballot.
> Then, in August, longtime GOP Sen. John McCain died. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey appointed Republican former Sen. Jon Kyl to the seat, but Kyl has committed to filling it only through this year -- leaving the possibility that Ducey could have to select another new senator in the coming weeks or months. Either way, McCain's seat is on the ballot in 2020 and is sure to be a top Democratic target.
> The upheaval comes as Arizona, long a Republican bastion, emerges as a swing state in presidential elections. Hillary Clinton lost to Trump by just 4 percentage points there. The result, and the state's growing Latino population, solidified Arizona as a battleground moving forward.
> The fight between McSally and Sinema was bitter, with both drastically shifting their previous positions.
> Attempting to prove her conservative bona fides during a primary fight with former state Sen. Kelli Ward and former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, McSally abandoned her previous support for moderate immigration bills.
> Sinema's House record ranks her among the most centrist Democrats -- but McSally seized on her rival's past as an anti-war activist, airing a television advertisement featuring Sinema protesting in a pink tutu. McSally told The Arizona Republic that Sinema "has a lot of explaining to do if you look at her Green Party-pink tutu, proud Prada socialist past and her extreme makeover."
> Latino Democratic strategists, meanwhile, groused that Sinema had moved too far right on immigration to appeal to a crucial, growing portion of the Democratic electorate.
> The focal point of the contest, though, was health care -- particularly pre-existing conditions. Sinema and Democratic groups lambasted McSally's vote for a House GOP bill to repeal Obamacare, which nonpartisan experts said would weaken the Affordable Care Act's protections for those with pre-existing conditions.
> McSally responded with advertisements claiming to be "leading the fight" to ensure those people are protected -- even though, under Obamacare, they already are, and the fight in Congress was over Republicans' efforts to change those protections.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062150609573425152

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062150713449558016


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Don't forget that for nationalists we are Rome being defended from the Barbarian horde therefore the cost of proteking us from the evil barbarian horde is justified.
> 
> I wonder when our government will start throwing military parades and building Colosseums.
> 
> Gotta save da west.


The military guarding the border is more prudent than using them blowing up areas we have no reason to be in and attacking foes who aren't even a threat.

Though would make even more sense if the military actually targeted the real issue like the cartels. 50 years ago the cartel activity would be considered an act of aggression.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The military guarding the border is more prudent than using them blowing up areas we have no reason to be in and attacking foes who aren't even a threat.
> 
> Though would make even more sense if *the military actually targeted the real issue like the cartels*. 50 years ago the cartel activity would be considered an act of aggression.


Did you just suggest that our military should go to war in Mexico? 

Follow up question, have you been smoking crack today?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Did you just suggest that our military should go to war in Mexico?
> 
> Follow up question, have you been smoking crack today?


Not invade Mexico but take out the Cartel operating Stateside. Obviously border patrol and the local law enforcement cannot handle them.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Where's the fiscal hawks at? :hmm


To be fair that figure is only if Trump increase the number of troops to 15,000. The mid-terms are over so this stunt will likely be over too so it will be a non-issue. Remember the outrage when Obama had troops in a military exercise in Texas? Trump actually deploying troops and they seem fine with it. :lol



Miss Sally said:


> Not invade Mexico but take out the Cartel operating Stateside. Obviously border patrol and the local law enforcement cannot handle them.


You want the military to do police work? That worked out so well in Iraq. /s


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Not invade Mexico but take out the Cartel operating Stateside. Obviously border patrol and the local law enforcement cannot handle them.


The only sane idea to deal with the cartels is to end the drug war. Take away their business and the problem will solve itself. I don't feel like I should have to explain to you how retarded it is to suggest using the military within our own borders to fight cartels.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The only sane idea to deal with the cartels is to end the drug war. Take away their business and the problem will solve itself. I don't feel like I should have to explain to you how retarded it is to suggest using the military within our own borders to fight cartels.


Using the Military to defend the borders from actual threats is more worthwhile than sending them around the globe to fight some random people who aren't a threat.

I completely agree with with ending the drug war. It's pointless.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Using the Military to defend the borders from actual threats is more worthwhile than sending them around the globe to fight some random people who aren't a threat.
> 
> I completely agree with with ending the drug war. It's pointless.


Using the military to defend the borders makes all the sense in the world. Using the military to fight cartels within our borders instead of simply ending the war on drugs makes zero sense. Actually, come to think of it, I don't think it's even legal under the The Posse Comitatus Act. The federal government is not supposed to be able to use the military to enforce domestic law.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






For the love of God, can this bitch fuck off already!


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Don't know if this is really politics but fuck it. I need someone. Politicians or whatever to fucking fix this shit trope that is happening with banks doing money laundering, gets caught, nobody goes to jail, the key people decides that this is a good time to retire (from the criminal bank mind you, not from any of their other jobs) and then gets fucking rewarded for a job well done!?

I need somebody to fix this.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Genking48 said:


> Don't know if this is really politics but fuck it. I need someone. Politicians or whatever to fucking fix this shit trope that is happening with banks doing money laundering, gets caught, nobody goes to jail, the key people decides that this is a good time to retire (from the criminal bank mind you, not from any of their other jobs) and then gets fucking rewarded for a job well done!?
> 
> I need somebody to fix this.


It's absolutely politics. 

Take Kamala Harris and Steve Mnuchin, for example. Harris was the attorney general in California and Mnuchin was the head of One West bank. One West was illegally foreclosing on people but Harris didn't prosecute. Turns out, Mnuchin was one of Harris' campaign donors. Now Harris is in the Senate and Mnuchin is the Treasury Secretary.

Look at what happened when the banks collapsed a decade ago. The government gave them trillions in bailout money. Not only were no bankers prosecuted for committing fraud against the American people and collapsing the economy, they all gave themselves bonuses while millions lost their homes.

Politicians don't prosecute criminal bankers because they are *owned* by the criminal bankers. This is a problem that will never be solved as long as Big Money private interests own our government. That goes for banks, Big Pharma, the military industrial complex, etc. etc. etc. and on down the line. If you have enough money in the USA, the law doesn't apply to you because you buy the people who write the laws.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> It's absolutely politics.
> 
> Take Kamala Harris and Steve Mnuchin, for example. Harris was the attorney general in California and Mnuchin was the head of One West bank. One West was illegally foreclosing on people but Harris didn't prosecute. Turns out, Mnuchin was one of Harris' campaign donors. Now Harris is in the Senate and Mnuchin is the Treasury Secretary.
> 
> Look at what happened when the banks collapsed a decade ago. The government gave them trillions in bailout money. Not only were no bankers prosecuted for committing fraud against the American people and collapsing the economy, they all gave themselves bonuses while millions lost their homes.
> 
> Politicians don't prosecute criminal bankers because they are *owned* by the criminal bankers. This is a problem that will never be solved as long as Big Money private interests own our government. That goes for banks, Big Pharma, the military industrial complex, etc. etc. etc. and on down the line. If you have enough money in the USA, the law doesn't apply to you because you buy the people who write the laws.


It's just baffling to me. we currently have this scandal going on with Danske Bank where there have been money laundering for €200bn. Investigation is still happening but so far all I've heard is that the bank itself is being punished but no actual person is being charged with anything.

Meanwhile a woman social worker have recently done some fraud and stole for about €14m. I think it happened a month ago. Guess what, she's caught and is going to stand trial in the nearest future.

Just seems to me like the woman was too small minded. If she'd been doing fraud for billions nobody would have been able to touch her :shrug


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Genking48 said:


> It's just baffling to me. we currently have this scandal going on with Danske Bank where there have been money laundering for €200bn. Investigation is still happening but so far all I've heard is that the bank itself is being punished but no actual person is being charged with anything.
> 
> Meanwhile a woman social worker have recently done some fraud and stole for about €14m. I think it happened a month ago. Guess what, she's caught and is going to stand trial in the nearest future.
> 
> Just seems to me like the woman was too small minded. If she'd been doing fraud for billions nobody would have been able to touch her :shrug


It depends on who you're stealing from. They don't mind if you're stealing from poor people. If you're stealing from the rich though, you'll be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That's why Bernie Madoff went to prison. Had he been committing fraud against regular people instead of his fellow rich people, he'd probably still be at it.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Where's the fiscal hawks at? :hmm


Border control is one of the few areas where it is appropriate for money to spent on, particularly in the US. I even think using some of the military for that instead of pointless wars overseas is a good idea. 

The problem is the United States wastes so much money in spending on frivolous things as well as of course way too much military spending and having entitlement programs which are now in excess of $100 trillion worth of unfunded liabilities and debt that needs reform.

From an outside perspective, the main problem with fiscal responsibility seems to be the way Congress and the Senate puts together spending bills with seemingly no oversight whatsoever. In the UK for example, this is one of the things we do right is in regards to legislation, particularly with spending bills and budgets. They are meticulously looked over and reviewed to make sure there isn't anything off kilter. Meanwhile in the US, pork spending is regularly added at the last minute to fit particular interest groups or issues politicians want addressed which are often nothing to do with the original bills intent. That's a big reason why the bills are often a thousand pages long and nobody reads them because there is a 48 hour time limit before they get voted on. The only person in the senate who seems to even care about this is Rand Paul.

The spending bills aren't even separated in regards to each department of the government so that they can reviewed by Congress and the Senate. The "continuing resolutions" as they are called are literally one big spending bill to keep operation of the government running with seemingly more and more items added on. There's never any talk or legislation towards spending cuts because both the Republicans and Democrats are united on this. One wants more military spending and one wants more welfare spending, both want more domestic spending. So instead of getting together and making comprises, they just both agree to increase spending unilaterally. That's why the deficits have been so high and have ballooned with the recent Trump tax cuts whilst spending has continued to increase.

Of course the drug war should end, that is the number one policy which will end the cartel's stranglehold on the supply of drugs and thus the criminality we see along the Southern Border which has been a problem. But as long as we have the old guard Social Conservatives anywhere near any semblance of power when it comes to the Department of Justice that isn't going to happen. Chris Christie for god sake has been a name floated to replace Jeff Sessions :lol. And though he has since changed his stance from cracking down on states who have legalized Cannabis to leaving them alone, you can bet your ass if he had it his way, he would go after them. I don't buy the argument that he has legitimately softened his stance on weed on a personal level because he keeps repeating the same bullshit argument on weed being a gateway drug. If Trump green lit it, he'd do it in a heartbeat but thankfully I don't think Trump is interested in doing that. I hope the rumours about him seriously considering legalizing Medical Marijuana on the federal level are true but we'll have to see, I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Using the Military to defend the borders from actual _*military*_ threats *not helpless caravans of people seeking asylum from conditions created by Americans in their countries* is more worthwhile than sending them around the globe to fight some random people who aren't a threat.
> 
> I completely agree with with ending the drug war. It's pointless.


Not trolling you or trying to get a rise out of you, but I added in what I would have said and is my opinion.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> Border control is one of the few areas where it is appropriate for money to spent on, particularly in the US. I even think using some of the military for that instead of pointless wars overseas is a good idea.
> 
> The problem is the United States wastes so much money in spending on frivolous things as well as of course way too much military spending and having entitlement programs which are now in excess of $100 trillion worth of unfunded liabilities and debt that needs reform.
> 
> From an outside perspective, the main problem with fiscal responsibility seems to be the way Congress and the Senate puts together spending bills with seemingly no oversight whatsoever. In the UK for example, one of the things we do right is in regards to legislation, particularly with spending bills and budgets. They are meticulously looked over and reviewed to make sure there isn't anything off kilter. Meanwhile in the US, pork spending is regularly added at the last minute to fit particular interest groups or issues politicians want addressed which are often nothing to do with the original bills intent. That's a big reason why the bills are often a thousand pages long and nobody reads them because there is a 48 hour time limit before they get voted on. The only person in the senate who seems to even care about this is Rand Paul.
> 
> The spending bills aren't even separated in regards to each department of the government so that they can reviewed by Congress and the Senate. The "continuing resolutions" as they are called are literally one big spending bill to keep operation of the government running with seemingly more and more items added on. There's never any talk or legislation towards spending cuts because both the Republicans and Democrats are united on this. One wants more military spending and one wants more welfare spending, both want more domestic spending. So instead of getting together and making comprises, they just both agree to increase spending unilaterally. That's why the deficits have been so high and have ballooned with the recent Trump tax cuts whilst spending has continued to increase.


These are all only problems as long as people pretend that money actually means anything. The fiscal hawks generally only start howling when it comes to spending that would actually help the American people. It's a bullshit talking point to keep the masses in poverty. The reality is, we have the resources to do a lot more than we do. The claim that we don't have the money for it is a pretend make believe game. You can't eat a penny or live in a house made of dollar bills. Resources are real. Money is not. There'll come a day when people figure that out. It'll probably be around the time capitalism collapses globally due to it's unsustainable nature.

I almost want to laugh when people start talking about all the debt they are "burdening" future generations with. The debt is never being paid. The idea that it ever will be is laughable. It's just numbers on a computer somewhere. The only reason it still means anything now is because people are still playing the make believe pretend game of money. People in the future won't be drowning in today's debt. What they will be doing, if humanity even survives that long, is looking back at the people of this era and laughing at how retarded we were to allow society to be held back from our true potential because of a shortage of something that isn't real to begin with.

I understand that you're talking about how the system works now. And you're not wrong. I'm just waiting on the day when humpty dumpty falls off the wall. There's not a lot we can do about things until then because of how thoroughly power has been concentrated at the top. The current system has been very good to those who write the rules and they will never stop until all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put that fucking egg back together.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reap said:


> Not trolling you or trying to get a rise out of you, but I added in what I would have said and is my opinion.


None taken, unless the caravans turn violent/riot it's more of a legal problem. Besides if I recall if anyone tries to cross their asylum is automatically rejected. They're not a threat.



Tater said:


> It's absolutely politics.
> 
> Take Kamala Harris and Steve Mnuchin, for example. Harris was the attorney general in California and Mnuchin was the head of One West bank. One West was illegally foreclosing on people but Harris didn't prosecute. Turns out, Mnuchin was one of Harris' campaign donors. Now Harris is in the Senate and Mnuchin is the Treasury Secretary.
> 
> Look at what happened when the banks collapsed a decade ago. The government gave them trillions in bailout money. Not only were no bankers prosecuted for committing fraud against the American people and collapsing the economy, they all gave themselves bonuses while millions lost their homes.
> 
> Politicians don't prosecute criminal bankers because they are *owned* by the criminal bankers. This is a problem that will never be solved as long as Big Money private interests own our government. That goes for banks, Big Pharma, the military industrial complex, etc. etc. etc. and on down the line. If you have enough money in the USA, the law doesn't apply to you because you buy the people who write the laws.


NOT Kamala Harris, she'd never do anything like that! Politicians would never, ever break the law, cover up for friends and then get away with it!

The banker and auto bailouts was some of the most asinine things ever done. Instead of paying the automakers, the Government should have given everyone based on income/family size car credits so they could purchase a new car. Yes it would bail out the automakers but also give families, students and poor people access to vehicles after the cash for clunkers debacle made buying a used car expensive. 

The Government should be investing in it's people, not into companies that fail due to their own mishandling. If I fuck up my financials nobody will give me money. (Unless I'm rich or a celeb and then I'll get bailed out) Companies shouldn't be above failing, especially the banks!

The only reason Wells Fargo is taking a hit because after getting exposed for laundering Cartel cash, people stopped doing business with them. Though I had been saying for years that they were up to no good, along with Western Union. These places are all corrupt to the core, none of them go to prison, they're rewarded for fucking people over. But no, steal a car stereo and you're doing hard time.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The banker and auto bailouts was some of the most asinine things ever done. Instead of paying the automakers, the Government should have given everyone based on income/family size car credits so they could purchase a new car. Yes it would bail out the automakers but also give families, students and poor people access to vehicles after the cash for clunkers debacle made buying a used car expensive.


They should've done the same thing with the foreclosure crisis instead of handing trillions to the banks while millions lost their homes. Had the Obama administration bailed out the homeowners and given people car credits instead of simply handing money directly to the banks and automakers, the banks and automakers would have still gotten the money but the people wouldn't have lost their homes and they'd have cars to drive.

If that's what would've happened 10 years ago, we wouldn't have Trump and the Republicans running the country right now.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> They should've done the same thing with the foreclosure crisis instead of handing trillions to the banks while millions lost their homes. Had the Obama administration bailed out the homeowners and given people car credits instead of simply handing money directly to the banks and automakers, the banks and automakers would have still gotten the money but the people wouldn't have lost their homes and they'd have cars to drive.
> 
> If that's what would've happened 10 years ago, we wouldn't have Trump and the Republicans running the country right now.


Yep. Far too many people ignore that.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Yep. Far too many people ignore that.


It's the absolute truth too. Republicans during the Dubya years wrecked the country so badly that Democrats were given complete control of all branches of federal government and a majority of state governments. Obama's "hope and change" was to repair the status quo and change nothing. That's why they are wiped out at all levels of government now. And the way things are going, it's exactly what will happen the next time the Republicans wreck everything because the same neoliberal Democrats are still in control of the party.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> It's the absolute truth too. Republicans during the Dubya years wrecked the country so badly that Democrats were given complete control of all branches of federal government and a majority of state governments. Obama's "hope and change" was to repair the status quo and change nothing. That's why they are wiped out at all levels of government now. And the way things are going, it's exactly what will happen the next time the Republicans wreck everything because the same neoliberal Democrats are still in control of the party.


True considering Pelosi is still in office. Then again, Cali was one of the places that Obama actually gave crap about during the post-recession. It says alot when the media and many coastals call the rest of the country "flyover states". If that isn't elitism, I don't know what is


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

How fucked the USA is right now in one tweet:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062396985313943553
Bezos is the richest man in the history of the world. He owns Amazon and The Washington Post, amongst other things. He's in bed with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon board. Yet, New York taxpayers have to help pay for his helipad. This is some next level shit right here.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> How fucked the USA is right now in one tweet:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062396985313943553
> Bezos is the richest man in the history of the world. He owns Amazon and The Washington Post, amongst other things. He's in bed with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon board. Yet, New York taxpayers have to help pay for his helipad. This is some next level shit right here.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> How fucked the USA is right now in one tweet:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062396985313943553
> Bezos is the richest man in the history of the world. He owns Amazon and The Washington Post, amongst other things. He's in bed with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon board. Yet, New York taxpayers have to help pay for his helipad. This is some next level shit right here.


John Stossel did a report like 8+ years ago according to the video where FEMA and the Government were using tax dollars to repair and build homes for rich people. 

There are million/billion dollar companies getting Government handouts and taxpayer funds. I think even Google gets them, it makes no sense why mega corporations and mega rich people even qualify to receive anything from the tax payers!


----------



## Josh Drake

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I am a 20-year-old Atheist male. I have been a liberal for 5 years now. I have taken a keen interest in politics for 10 years. I have to say that this political tide over the past 3-4 years has been chaotic and somewhat toxic.

It really started for me when the Paris attacks occurred in 2015 and everyone from Alex Jones to the mainstream people only wanted to go at each other's throats instead of legitimately discuss the underlying issues. From that point on for me, politics got even worse and worse. Nobody wanted to discuss the issues anymore, only wanting to lay a bunch of personal attacks on each other.

If anybody wants to have a discussion about politics, they can ask me for it, but I have yet to actually see that from people these days.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Dems picked up a couple more seats the past few days, blue wave getting bigger and bigger


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Bezos is the richest man in the history of the world. He owns Amazon and The Washington Post, amongst other things. He's in bed with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon board. Yet, New York taxpayers have to help pay for his helipad. This is some next level shit right here.


That's what New Yorkers get for being dumb enough to re-elect Cuomo.

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article216056560.html



> *Bizarre tales, confusing ballots from Georgia’s primary contained in federal lawsuit*
> 
> It appeared, according to the Georgia Secretary of State’s website, that Habersham County’s Mud Creek precinct in northeastern Georgia had 276 registered voters ahead of the state’s primary elections in May.
> 
> Some 670 ballots were cast, according to the Georgia secretary of state’s office, indicating a 243 percent turnout.
> 
> But on Tuesday at 10 a.m., the number of registered voters on the secretary of state’s website was changed for Mud Creek to 3,704 registered voters, reflecting a more likely turnout of about 18 percent.
> 
> The odd turnout figures last Friday were filed as part of a federal lawsuit against the state by election security activists that included a number of sworn statements and exhibits from activists and voters who experienced a series of bizarre and confusing issues at the state’s polling places.
> 
> That confusion comes amid swelling public concern for the security of Georgia’s voting systems. Georgia is one of four states that uses voting machines statewide that produce no paper record for voters to verify, making them difficult to audit, experts say.
> 
> And cybersecurity experts have warned that there were security flaws on the state election website leading up to the 2016 contest that permitted the download and manipulation of voter information.
> 
> The court filings highlight various issues with Georgia’s 16-year-old voting machines, as well as the system that runs them and handles voter registration information.
> 
> In one sworn statement, a voter explains that she and her husband, who were registered to vote at the same address, were assigned different polling places and different city council districts. In another, a voting machine froze on Election Day.
> 
> In several instances, voters showed up at their polling places as listed on the secretary of state’s website, only to be told they were supposed to vote elsewhere.
> 
> An Atlanta Democrat’s voting machine provided him a ballot including the 5th Congressional District, for which longtime Rep. John Lewis ran unopposed, instead of his 6th Congressional District ballot, which featured a competitive Democratic race.
> 
> Some issues, like the freezing machines, could be chalked up to the the age of the polling infrastructure, said Harri Hursti, a computer programmer who studies election cybersecurity.
> 
> But others, like the incorrect ballots, could have been caused by anything from a clerical error to a malicious manipulation of voter data, said Hursti, who is also the organizer for the Voting Village at hacking conference DEF CON, where participants demonstrate hacking into some state voting machines.
> 
> It’s possible that there’s a connection between the security issues reported at Georgia’s Center for Election Systems and the issues chronicled in the court statements, but an immediate switch to paper ballots is necessary regardless, Hursti said.
> 
> “But the connection is not needed,” he said. “You don’t need to have a smoking gun to do the right thing.”
> 
> In a statement, the office of Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp defended the security of state elections.
> 
> “Alongside federal, local, and private sector partners, we continue to fight every day to ensure secure and accurate elections in Georgia that are free from interference. To this day, due to the vigilance, dedication, and hard work of those partners, our elections system and voting equipment remain secure,” spokeswoman Candice Broce wrote in an email.
> 
> Kemp has set up a bipartisan commission to look into changing state voting machines ahead of the 2020 elections, but not in time for the midterm elections this November.
> 
> Marilyn Marks, the executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, which has led the charge against the state’s management of the election system, said the statements filed in federal court are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to voter complaints.
> 
> “We are submitting only a small sample from scores of known system malfunctions and irregularities,” she wrote in an email. “But those examples should raise alarms with officials, political parties, candidates and voters. Something is terribly wrong at a systemic level, and is not being taken seriously by Secretary Kemp, or the state and counties’ election boards charged with conducting secure elections.”
> 
> The court statements are the latest additions to the growing list of concerns surrounding Georgia’s election security.
> 
> In July, Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment indicated that Russian operatives charged with hacking into Democrats’ emails also visited county election websites in Georgia, among other states.
> 
> Kennesaw State University’s Center for Election Systems, which was responsible for running Georgia’s elections, was proven vulnerable by friendly cybersecurity experts both before and after the 2016 elections.
> 
> Voter information and other important data, which gets disseminated to polling places in Georgia’s 159 counties, was open to the public and could have been manipulated by bad actors, charged Logan Lamb, the first friendly hacker to notify the state of the issue. He sent that notification in August 2016, but the problem was not fully solved until March 2017.
> 
> Jasmine Clark, who will be on the ballot for Georgia’s House of Representatives in November, spent an extra half hour at her polling place on July 24. If she didn’t have that spare time, she may not have been able to vote at all, she said in her statement.
> 
> When Clark arrived at about 7:50 that morning, elections officials told her she’d gone to the wrong polling place, even though she hadn’t changed her registration information since 2016.
> 
> Inexplicably, she was told 25 minutes later that her name had appeared on the electronic poll book for that voting location, and she was able to cast her ballot.
> 
> “Unlike other people I met that day who were turned away, I had the flexibility to stay to fight for my right to vote in the right precinct on the correct ballot,” she said in her statement.
> 
> Duluth voter Dana Bowers experienced a similar problem. She was told, “Don’t worry Ms. Bowers, this has been happening all day,” according to her sworn declaration.
> 
> Bowers, who works as an advocacy coordinator in Josh McCall’s campaign for the 9th Congressional District, had checked her “My Voter Page” on the secretary of state’s office website before heading to the polls in July and found she’d been assigned a new precinct — number 100.
> 
> But when she arrived at what she thought was her new polling place, she was told she was still assigned her original polling place in precinct 96. She wound up filling out a provisional ballot that day. When she checked her “My Voter Page” after the election, she wrote in her statement, she was assigned to precinct 96 once more.
> 
> Other statements chronicled issues with the voting machines themselves.
> 
> Bowers, for example, noticed that a machine was marked “Do Not Touch,” when she went to vote in July. One poll worker told her votes had been cast on the machine prior to its failure on Election Day.
> 
> After the polls closed, Bowers noticed the results tape from the machine showed it hadn’t collected any votes.
> 
> Two statements also indicated that the race in the 9th Congressional District were omitted from a results tape in one precinct of Hall County.
> 
> Hall County Elections Director Lori Wurtz later said there had been “no discrepancies” with the results.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

^ Good lord what a mess. This is why no one can have nice things - no normal person anyway. Once the voting machines become self aware we're all fucked.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Looks like some Dems are fed up with Pelosi


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063083900346552320
Libertarians for Tulsi! :mark:

It'd be very interesting indeed to see how many principled anti-war right wing libertarians would vote Democrat in a potential Tulsi vs Trump matchup. Verrrrrry interesting indeed.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Looks like some Dems are fed up with Pelosi


There's a youth movement going in the Democratic Party. The new players will come into the spotlight when Sanders, Warren, Pelosi, Waters, and Feinstein are out. 

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> That's what New Yorkers get for being dumb enough to re-elect Cuomo.
> 
> - Vic


This is not a NY problem. This is an American problem where they like to believe that social welfare statism is worse than corporate welfare statism. 

More Americans support corporate social welfare than social welfare.

They believe that if an inefficient business was given money, it would magically become efficient and not steal the money, but if they gave money to a homeless guy, he is the one who's stealing the money and making poor use of it. 

The only difference in efficiency between a failing capitalist and a homeless person is that the failing capitalist isn't homeless ... yet and the government has done everything in its power to keep him from becoming homeless.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063083900346552320
> Libertarians for Tulsi! :mark:
> 
> It'd be very interesting indeed to see how many principled anti-war right wing libertarians would vote Democrat in a potential Tulsi vs Trump matchup. Verrrrrry interesting indeed.


Libertarians who follow their principles all the time wouldn't vote at all.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063129584974131202

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063137090576310273

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063135905437966336

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063108074154614785

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063107418261835776

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063118122247426050


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Not gonna lie imagining Nancy Pelosi saying "come on in, the water's warm" made me throw up in my mouth a little

Didn't have the heart to watch her actually say it


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Tulsi's actually running? :mark: :mark: :mark:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Meanwhile Paul Ryan managed to bury a bill that was going to go some distance in pulling America out of Saudis Yemen ethnic cleansing. 

https://www.thenation.com/article/paul-ryan-yemen-congress/


> Paul Ryan Secures His Legacy by Supporting a Brutal War on Yemen
> Already the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, the war in Yemen was further flamed by Ryan’s most recent move.
> By James Carden TODAY 4:23 PM
> fbtwmailmsgwasms
> Yemen Saudi air strike Sanaa
> Guards walk on the wreckage of a building destroyed by air strikes in Sanaa, Yemen, on June 6, 2018. (Reuters / Khaled Abdullah)
> 
> Ready To Fight Back?
> Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week.
> Enter Email
> You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
> 
> Give Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan credit for consistency. Ryan, who has made a career railing against assistance for society’s most vulnerable, clearly is no more capable of empathizing with his fellow citizens than he is with millions of Yemeni civilians who today find themselves, through no fault of their own, under a savage siege by the militaries of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The joint Saudi-Emirati enterprise has, for years now, been on the receiving end of assistance from the United States in the form of intelligence and re-fueling missions.
> 
> 
> The toll the Saudi-led, US-assisted war has taken on the civilian population in Yemen is nearly unprecedented in modern times. According to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, “Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis…more than 22 million people – three-quarters of the population – need humanitarian aid and protection.”
> 
> Indeed, one UNICEF official recently told NPR that the war on Yemen is devolving into a “war on children,” in which one Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes. Still more, according to NPR, “More than 400,000 children are starving. Another 1.5 million are acutely malnourished and need aid to survive.”
> 
> *Bipartisan attempts to halt US involvement in this massive crime have been undermined by Speaker Ryan’s Republican caucus, the most egregious instance having occurred Wednesday, when California Congressman Ro Khanna’s bill, House Concurrent Resolution 138, which would have directed the President to end US military involvement in the war on Yemen, was effectively defeated on the floor of the House.
> 
> The defeat of Khanna’s bill, which had 81 co-sponsors, was brought about by a cowardly maneuver by Rules Committee chairman, Republican Pete Sessions, who allowed the addition of an amendment to the so-called “Manage Our Wolves” act that stripped Khanna’s bill of its “privileged” status, meaning the committee was able to bar the bill from a full floor vote.*
> 
> Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi was quick to condemn the move. A statement released by her office read, in part: “The conflict in Yemen has gone on for far too long, leaving a permanent stain on the conscience of the world. Yet, House Republicans just took sweeping, unprecedented action to undermine Congress’ solemn, long-established prerogative to limit the President’s war powers.” For his part, Khanna rightly accused House Republicans of “abdicating congressional oversight duties on their way out of power.” Khanna vowed to continue to fight “to end U.S. involvement in the worst humanitarian crisis in modern history.”
> 
> What possible interest could the House Republicans (plus six Democrats: Rep. Gene Green, Rep. Anna Eshoo, Rep. Jim Costa, Rep. Collin Peterson, Rep. Filemon Vela and Rep. Vincente Gonzalez) have in continuing to give sanction to US military involvement in what amounts a genocidal war waged in the name of Sunni supremacy on the Saudi peninsula?
> 
> CURRENT ISSUE
> View our current issue
> Subscribe today and Save up to $129.
> 
> Look no further than the money.
> 
> The State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, perversely boasts that “Saudi Arabia is the United States’ largest foreign military sales (FMS) customer, with over $114 billion in active cases.” And the extent of the Saudi shopping spree is indeed impressive and includes such highlights as:
> 
> The signing of a $110 billion agreement to pursue Saudi Armed Forces modernization by President Trump and King Salman (May 2017)
> The continuation of a naval blanket order training program for an estimated cost of $250 million. (May 2017)
> The continuation of a blanket order training program that includes flight training, technical training, professional military education, specialized training, mobile training teams, and English language training, valued at $750 million. (June 2017)
> $6 billion for Saudi Arabian eastern fleet modernization. (October 2017)
> The potential sale of 44 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) launchers, 360 THAAD Interceptor Missiles, 16 THAAD Fire Control and Communications Mobile Tactical Station Group, seven AN/TPY-2 THAAD radars, and associated support equipment, for an estimated cost of $13.5 billion. (October 2017)
> In spiking Khanna’s bipartisan bill to end American support for the war, House Republicans have put the interests of defense contractors and our dubious Gulf state “allies” ahead of millions of suffering and vulnerable Yemenis.
> 
> One day, perhaps, history will judge.
> 
> James CardenJames W. Carden is a contributing writer at The Nation and the executive editor for the American Committee for East-West Accord.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DOPA said:


> Tulsi's actually running? :mark: :mark: :mark:


A Tulsi and Beto ticket would be amazing.

More fuckery with FL voting

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/11/15/broward-county-finishes-machine-recount


Broward Submits Machine Recount Results 2 Minutes Late, Won’t Count Towards Election Total


TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/AP) — The embattled Broward County Elections Department completed the machine recount that could help determine the next senator and Governor in Florida, one of America’s top political battlegrounds.


However, those results were submitted two minutes past the 3 p.m. deadline and will not count.


Instead, the initial results submitted last Saturday will be considered the official numbers now.

The department says it finished the machine recount around 1 a.m. and the canvassing board then began checking 384 damaged ballots.

The damaged ballots were duplicated and scanned into the machines and added to the final recount tally. Unfortunately, all that work went for nothing as they missed the state mandated deadline by two minutes.

Democratic stronghold of Palm Beach County also failed to meet its deadline.

Still, more than a week after Election Day, the sense of resolution could be lacking Thursday. Once the machine recount is complete, state law requires a hand review of races with margins of less than 0.25 percentage points. That means the Senate race, where unofficial results have Republican Gov. Rick Scott ahead of Nelson by 0.14 percentage points, is almost certain to go to another recount that will last through the weekend.

Although the machine recount may essentially bring a conclusion to the governor’s race, where Republican Ron DeSantis leads Democrat Andrew Gillum by 0.41 percentage points in unofficial results, the election won’t be certified until Tuesday.

Despite an ongoing recount in Florida for the extremely tight Senate race between Gov. Rick Scott and Sen. Bill Nelson, Scott appeared at a photo opp Wednesday on Capitol Hill for newly-elected Republican Senators.

gettyimages 1067462046 Broward Submits Machine Recount Results 2 Minutes Late, Wont Count Towards Election Total
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (4th L) poses for photos with Senator-elects Mitt Romney (R-UT) (L), Josh Hawley (R-MO) (2nd L), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) (3rd L), Kevin Cramer (R-NC) and Republican U.S. Senate candidate for Florida and incumbent Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) during a photo-op at the U.S. Capitol November 14, 2018 in Washington, DC. Sen. McConnell held a photo-op to meet with the newly elected Republican Senate members from the midterm election. Gov. Scott is still locked down in a battle with incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) for the Senate seat they are running for, via a machine recount that was automatically triggered by state law that mandates in races with a vote margin less than 0.5 percent. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Scott has already declared himself the winner of the Senate race, but Nelson and the Democrats have filed several lawsuits that could disrupt the recount now underway.

Nelson, a three-time incumbent, has defended his legal strategy, saying in a statement Wednesday that “it remains the most important goal of my campaign to make sure that every lawful vote be counted correctly in this Senate race, and that Floridians’ right to participate in this process is protected.”

But Republicans have criticized the effort, saying Democrats are trying to change election rules once the voting was complete. Republicans have filed their own lawsuits and fought back against Nelson and Democrats.

“We will continue to fight to defend Florida law and uphold the will of the voters,” said Chris Hartline, a spokesman for Scott.

That legal fight will continue again Thursday with hearings scheduled in federal court in two of the six outstanding lawsuits pending in Tallahassee.

Lawyers for both sides are also eagerly awaiting a ruling from U.S. District Judge Mark Walker on whether he will order election officials to automatically count thousands of mail-in ballots that were rejected because the signatures on the ballots did not match signatures on file. Nelson and Democrats have argued election officials aren’t handwriting experts and should not be allowed to throw out ballots because of the mismatch.

But after a lengthy hearing, Walker said Wednesday that he was unlikely to side with Democrats and order the automatic counting of all the ballots with mismatched signatures. However, he did say he was open to giving voters extra time to fix their ballots.

The developments are fueling frustrations among Democrats and Republicans alike. Democrats have urged state officials to do whatever it takes to make sure every vote is counted. Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have argued without evidence that voter fraud threatens to steal races from the GOP.

Another big question looming Thursday is whether all counties will finish the machine recount. Tallying machines overheated earlier this week in Palm Beach County. That caused mismatched results with the recount of 174,000 early voting ballots, forcing staffers to go back and redo their work.

Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher said the machines underwent maintenance right before the election, but “I don’t think they were designed to work 24/7.”

(© Copyright 2018 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...se-could-have-funded-150-police-a3989706.html



> Sadiq Khan should spend money on “police not public servants” it was claimed today, after figures showed City Hall staffing costs have soared by £9 million under his watch.
> 
> The Greater London Authority (GLA) has taken on more than 100 new members of staff — an increase of 16 per cent — and those earning £100,000 salaries have grown by 25 per cent since Mr Khan took office in May 2016.
> 
> A spokesman for the Mayor said the increase reflected the rise in Mr Khan’s “powers and responsibilities” for housing, health and adult education.
> 
> The surge in staff numbers, from 704 in 2016 to 819 this year, includes the London Assembly which holds the Mayor to account.
> 
> The cost of temporary staff has also doubled under Mr Khan, increasing by more than £1 million, according to figures released by the Mayor’s office. In 2015, Boris Johnson’s administration spent £914,215 on 71 temps, but by April last year this had increased to £2,174,446 to fund 173 temps.
> 
> The figures were obtained by Conservative Assembly Member Susan Hall who said: “Rather than spending millions on beefing up his City Hall operation, Khan should be using this money to get more police on the streets to crack down on London’s violent crime epidemic. With an additional £9 million the Met could hire 150 officers.”
> 
> John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said taxpayers would be “annoyed” their money was being spent on “building Sadiq Khan’s fiefdom” at City Hall.
> 
> A spokesman for the Mayor said City Hall had seen a “small increase” in the number of public servants, reflecting a rise in responsibilities for the Mayor.
> 
> He added: “In the face of huge government cuts, the Mayor has shown real leadership in tackling violent crime, investing in the Met’s new Violent Crime Task Force of 272 officers working to catch violent offenders and setting up the Violence Reduction Unit to focus on the root causes of crime.
> 
> “He has also created the £45 million Young Londoners Fund to help those who are at risk of getting caught up in crime.”
> 
> He added: “Sadiq is delivering real improvements to Londoners’ lives and makes no apologies for his work.”


You can't continuously pass the buck for increase in crime when your priorities are out of wack.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://apnews.com/7985be43fa4c4422bfece25cb0204307



> *APNewsBreak: Abrams preparing new challenge in Georgia race*
> 
> 
> 
> This combination of May 20, 2018, photos shows Georgia gubernatorial candidates Stacey Abrams, left, and Brian Kemp in Atlanta. (AP Photos/John Amis, File)
> 
> ATLANTA (AP) — Stacey Abrams’ campaign is preparing an unprecedented legal challenge in the unresolved Georgia governor’s race that could leave the state’s Supreme Court deciding whether to force another round of voting.
> 
> The Democrat’s longshot strategy relies on a statute that’s never been used in such a high-stakes contest. It is being discussed as Georgia elections officials appear to be on the cusp of certifying Republican Brian Kemp as the winner of a bitterly fought campaign that’s been marred by charges of electoral malfeasance.
> 
> Top Abrams advisers outlined her prospective case to The Associated Press, stressing that the Democratic candidate hasn’t finalized a decision about whether to proceed once state officials certify Kemp as the victor. That could happen as early as Friday evening.
> 
> Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, Abrams’ campaign chairwoman, is overseeing a team of almost three-dozen lawyers who in the coming days will draft the petition, along with a ream of affidavits from voters and would-be voters who say they were disenfranchised. Abrams would then decide whether to go to court under a provision of Georgia election law that allows losing candidates to challenge results based on “misconduct, fraud or irregularities ... sufficient to change or place in doubt the results.”
> 
> The legal team is “considering all options,” Lawrence-Hardy said, including federal court remedies. But the state challenge is the most drastic. And some Democratic legal observers note Abrams would be dependent on statutes that set a high bar for the court to intervene.
> 
> Kemp’s campaign, which already has shifted into transition mode presuming he’ll be inaugurated in January, said Abrams is pushing a “publicity stunt” and said her refusal to concede is a “ridiculous temper tantrum.”
> 
> She already faces a narrow path to the governor’s mansion. Unofficial returns show Kemp with about 50.2 percent of more than 3.9 million votes. That puts him about 18,000 votes above the threshold required to win by a majority and avoid a Dec. 4 runoff. The Associated Press is not calling the race until state officials certify the results.
> 
> Abrams would assert that enough irregularities occurred to raise the possibility that at least 18,000 Georgians either had their ballots thrown out or were not allowed to vote.
> 
> Lawrence-Hardy told the AP that Abrams will weigh legal considerations alongside her belief that many of her backers — particularly minority and poorer voters who don’t regularly go to the polls — heeded her call to participate and ran into barriers.
> 
> “These stories to me are such that they have to be addressed,” said Lawrence-Hardy, who was among the army of lawyers who worked on the Bush v. Gore presidential election dispute in 2000. “It’s just a much bigger responsibility. I feel like our mandate has blossomed. ... Maybe this is our moment.”
> 
> Kemp, who served as the state’s chief elections officer until two days after the election when he resigned as secretary of state and declared victory, has maintained that any uncounted ballots won’t change the outcome. Kemp supporters have gathered at some local elections offices protesting what they cast as an attempt to steal the election.
> 
> The circumstances leave Abrams, a 44-year-old rising Democratic star, with a tough decision. The former state lawmaker became a national political celebrity with her bid to become the first black woman in American history to be elected governor. Her strategy of running as an unapologetic liberal who attracts new voters to the polls resonated in a rapidly changing state. Yet Abrams also must consider her own political future and the consequences of a protracted legal fight she might not win.
> 
> All of that is playing out against the backdrop of Kemp’s unabashed embrace of President Donald Trump’s nationalism.
> 
> Since Election Day, Abrams campaign workers have transitioned from get-out-the-vote efforts to helping voters determine whether their ballots were counted and documenting reported problems. The idea is to assemble a body of evidence to support the claim that the problems could account for Kemp’s 18,000-vote margin above the runoff trigger.
> 
> Affidavits from poll workers reviewed by the AP describe long lines that discouraged people from voting, poll workers failing to offer provisional ballots to people who didn’t show up on the rolls or were at the wrong polling place and election equipment that froze and had to be rebooted.
> 
> Cathy Cox, a Democrat who served as secretary of state from 1999 through 2007 and is now the dean of Mercer University’s law school, said Georgia law puts a heavy burden on candidates such as Abrams who ask a court to intervene.
> 
> “I would say with pretty great confidence there has probably never been an election ... without some irregularity, where some poll worker did not make some mistake,” Cox said in an interview. The key, she said, is proving someone erred to the point that it could change the outcome.
> 
> Lawrence-Hardy agreed the law requires a quantitative analysis. She said Abrams’ team doesn’t have a list of 18,000 disenfranchised voters. The evidence, she said, would consist of hundreds, if not thousands of such examples, along with data analysis of projected lost votes based on other problems, such as a lack of paper ballots at precincts where voting machines broke down and voters left long lines.
> 
> Cox said courts must attempt to apply a nonpartisan standard of “doubt” to the election. “Would a reasonable person have a reason to doubt this election? Not would a hard-core partisan Democrat doubt a partisan Republican opponent,” she said.
> 
> Abrams and voting rights activists have argued for months that Kemp mismanaged the elections system as secretary of state, with Abrams often calling Kemp “an architect of suppression.”
> 
> Under Georgia law, Abrams could file a challenge against Kemp or his successor as the secretary of state. The challenge must be filed within five days of certification in a trial court of the county where the chosen defendant resides. The defendant has between five and 10 days to respond, and the presiding judge sets a hearing within 20 days after that deadline, a calendar that could push a dispute well beyond what would have been a Dec. 4 runoff.
> 
> If the judge determines the election is so defective that it casts doubt on the results, the judge can declare the election invalid and call a new vote among the same candidates. Cox called that “the real extreme remedy.”
> 
> A more “surgical” course, she said, would be to affirm irregularities but only order that certified results be reopened and recertified once those problems are remedied. The judge could then declare a winner or order a runoff if the results are close enough.
> 
> The judge could also declare a winner after hearing the evidence, but Cox said that’s unlikely because the case will probably hinge on uncounted votes and there’s no way to know before a count which candidate won those votes.
> 
> Once the judge rules, the loser has 10 days to appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063171854997831683


----------



## virus21

Looks like the "far left" have turned on Bernie. To the surprise of no one.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Looks like the "far left" have turned on Bernie. To the surprise of no one.


What happened exactly?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-engla...F7vu8qe_BbOlv6cXKDRNbn7wqW6Xv7PZP8uQq-seUVF3U



> Six men have been jailed for sexually exploiting young girls in Rotherham who were gang-raped and abused by them.
> 
> The men subjected the five girls to "degrading and violent" acts using drink, drugs and the "excitement of friendship" to lure them in.
> 
> A trial heard one girl had been sexually abused by "at least 100 Asian men" by the time she was 16, while another described being passed around.
> 
> They were sentenced to between 10 and 23 years at Sheffield Crown Court.
> 
> The men, who are all of British Pakistani heritage, targeted and groomed the girls, who were aged between 13 and 16, over seven years between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> In a victim impact statement, one of the girls said: "I feel like I'm constantly fighting to get justice for what they did to me. I hope the court realises these men have destroyed me.
> 
> "Some parts of me can never be fixed."
> 
> Sentencing them, Judge Sarah Wright told the men: "Each in your own way perpetrated, facilitated or encouraged the sexual abuse of these young girls.
> 
> "Each of the complainants in this case were groomed, coerced and intimidated. Each of them was groomed. Each of you, groomed.
> 
> "You can have been in no doubt that the complainants were vulnerable in the extreme."
> 
> The victims described being taken to locations across Rotherham including a tip in Rawmarsh, a supermarket car park, Clifton Park and Ulley Country Park.
> 
> One girl, who was 14 at the time, was given cannabis and driven to Sherwood Forest by Nabeel Kurshid, Iqlak Yousaf and a third man.
> 
> The men then took turns raping her, warning her that if she did not do as she was told she would be left there.
> 
> Another said Mohammed Imran Ali Akhtar regularly threatened to dump her in remote locations if she did not have sex with him and his friends, and on one occasion, he abandoned her by the side of a motorway.
> 
> The same girl said Akhtar would take her to meet older Asian taxi drivers, who would then abuse her.
> 
> 'Preyed on the vulnerable'
> Another recounted how as Tanweer Ali raped her in the back of a car he told her: "It's better you just get it over and done with and then you can go back home".
> 
> Judge Wright added: "You were clearly not immature evidenced by the fact you all indulged in cynical manipulation and exploitation of your victims, which showed a maturity well beyond your chronological age.
> 
> "They continue to suffer considerable trauma and will continue to suffer throughout their lives as a result of your actions."
> 
> The convictions are the latest to come out of Operation Stovewood, run by the National Crime Agency (NCA).
> 
> It began in 2014 after a report found at least 1,400 children in Rotherham were the victims of abuse between 1997 and 2013.
> 
> Paul Williamson, from the NCA, said: "The men who have been sentenced today preyed on vulnerable young girls for their own satisfaction.
> 
> "They used violence and intimidation and believed they were untouchable by law enforcement."
> 
> The convicted men:
> 
> * Mohammed Imran Ali Akhtar, 37, of Godstone Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of one count of rape, one count of aiding and abetting rape, three counts of indecent assault, one count of procuring a girl under 21 to have unlawful sexual intercourse with another, and one count of sexual assault, sentenced to 23 years.
> 
> * Nabeel Kurshid, 35, of Weetwood Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of rape and one count of indecent assault, sentenced to 19 years.
> 
> *Iqlak Yousaf, 34, Tooker Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault, sentenced to 20 years.
> 
> *Tanweer Ali, 37, of Godstone Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of rape, two counts of indecent assault and one count of false imprisonment, sentenced to 14 years.
> 
> * Salah Ahmed El-Hakam, 39, Tudor Close, Sheffield, was found guilty of one count of rape, sentenced to 15 years.
> 
> *Asif Ali, 33, of Clough Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of indecent assault, sentenced to 10 years.
> 
> A seventh man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, will be sentenced at a later date after being convicted of two counts of rape.


Six more men jailed in connection with the Rotherham grooming gangs with a 7th to be later sentenced. Good riddance.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> What happened exactly?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Leaving this here without comment.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

How does a corporate CEO have that kind of power? I'm thinking William Gibson was right.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Looks like the "far left" have turned on Bernie. To the surprise of no one.





virus21 said:


>




That youtuber is a clown. Always roll my eyes when people like him bring up oh you are the bigot if you are calling out other peoples bigotry. He is ignoring the "spirit" of the word bigotry. its like those same people who claim well if you are against people that are intolerant (of gays for example) then you are being intolerant. No, that is not how it works in the spirt of those words. 


And LOL at trying to defend Trump claiming he is not racist, sexists, homophobic or xenophobia.

As for the far left being against Bernie, oh you mean the crackpots of the left aka the Alt left. no one takes them seriously, not to mention Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Incredibly sad to see that corporate social welfare wins the day again and again. 



> *Amazon lands lots of cash ($22,000 to $48,000 per job) and goodies for new headquarters
> *
> When Amazon started looking for a second headquarters location more than a year ago, the company asked cities to put their best offers on the table — in cash.
> 
> “Incentives offered by the state/province and local communities to offset initial capital outlay and ongoing operational costs will be significant factors in the decision-making process,” the initial request read.
> 
> The victors, New York and Virginia, delivered. The final deals revealed on Tuesday showed they provided total incentives worth about $2.8 billion total — extraordinarily generous offers to a company whose profits in 2017 totaled $3 billion on $178 billion in revenues, and whose founder Jeff Bezos is the wealthiest man in the world.
> 
> Amazon’s requested perks include not just money, but a helipad at its planned new locations in Long Island City and National Landing — a tall order, given that Crystal City currently falls within a flight restricted zone where the only allowed flights are those that go through the airport or have to do with law enforcement and the military.
> 
> “I was surprised the package wasn’t bigger,” said John Boyd, a site selection consultant who wasn’t involved in the Amazon search. “For a high-cost market like Long Island City, incentives are a necessarily evil.”
> 
> Amazon has long been a master of extracting tax incentives by playing local governments off one another as they vie for fulfillment centers, offices, and other sources of jobs.
> 
> For its headquarters, the company didn’t go with the richest offer.
> 
> Maryland had pledged $8.5 billion for sites just north of Washington D.C. and New Jersey had offered a $7 billion package if Amazon located in Newark. Those offers were predicated on a single headquarters with 50,000 jobs rather than the existing split deal with 25,000 in each location, but still would have blown the New York and Virginia offers out of the water — a signal that Amazon was not willing to compromise on access to technical talent.
> 
> Some of the incentives are subject to approval by state and local legislative bodies, setting up a likely political fight over how much public money to give away in exchange for thousands of high-paying tech jobs.
> 
> Already, a New York state legislator has signaled he plans to introduce a bill to block the deal by phasing out the economic incentive statutes upon which the agreement is based.
> 
> “There is a much better way of allocating our taxpayer’s money that will directly help the communities,” said New York State Assemblyman Ron Kim, who represents parts of Queens.
> 
> VIRGINIA’S OFFER: $22,000 PER JOB
> The bulk of Virginia’s tax incentives come in the form of a cash grant of $22,000 for each job added over the next 12 years, as long as the average annual wage of those jobs is at least $150,000 — a total of $550 million if Amazon adds the 25,000 jobs it says it will, and up to $750 million it if adds more jobs on top of that.
> 
> The funds, which have to be appropriated by the Virginia General Assembly, are designed to decrease slightly in value if more than 10% of the new hires are focused on federal government contracts.
> 
> In addition, Amazon will receive $23 million cash from the local Arlington County authorities based on an expected increase in hotel taxes, which needs to be approved by the County Board.
> 
> Another $28 million in forecast property tax revenues will be dedicated to infrastructure investments around National Landing, the new branding for the collective developments of Potomac Yards, Pentagon City and Crystal City, all across the Potomac River but still within view of downtown Washington DC.
> 
> The agreement with Arlington County also pledges assistance in securing the necessary approval for a helipad on Amazon’s new campus.
> 
> Virginia’s memorandum with Amazon pledges a maximum of $295 million of state investment to pay for transportation projects in the area, including a pedestrian bridge to connect the neighborhoods to nearby Reagan National Airport, which is separated from Amazon’s new home by a highway.
> 
> Virginia pledged a few other goodies, such as a commitment to “regulatory flexibility” in order to allow new technologies to operate in the area, as well as confidentiality for “all materials, communications, data, and information related to this Memorandum.” That could mean testing of everything from drones to autonomous delivery vehicles, which Amazon has been developing at its Seattle headquarters.
> 
> There was no reference in the memoranda to collaboration on preserving housing affordability, hiring locally, or working with local educational institutions. However, Virginia Tech on Tuesday announced a new $1 billion “Innovation Campus” just south of the newly named National Landing. And JBG Smith, the developer that will be working with Amazon to build its new complex, in May announced an effort to preserve and construct low-cost housing in the surrounding area.
> 
> NEW YORK’S OFFER: $48,000 PER JOB
> The combined offer from New York State and New York City is considerably richer than the one offered by Virginia, and does not require approval by any local or state legislative body.
> 
> The incentives offered for Amazon’s Long Island City campus total $1.5 billion if the company hires 25,000 people, and up to $1.7 billion if it hires 40,000 people, which mostly reflects a $48,000-per-job tax credit for every position as long as the average salary is at least $150,000.
> 
> There’s another cash grant of $325 million based on the company occupying a certain amount of office space.
> 
> Amazon said it would separately apply for another tax incentive offered to all companies that add jobs in New York’s outer boroughs, which is worth $3,000 per employee over 10 years, as well as a property tax abatement for commercial construction.
> 
> The agreement also pledges assistance in securing a helipad, with flights limited to 120 per year and limited to company executives.
> 
> When asked why New York’s bid was so much higher than Virginia’s at a press conference on Tuesday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo pointed out that Virginia’s personal income tax is lower than New York’s. “I don’t know how they calculated it, and what they actually calculated,” Cuomo said. “So I don’t have an idea about how they put together their transaction.”
> 
> While the New York deal is worth more for Amazon, it also comes with more requirements than the Virginia agreement.
> 
> For example, Amazon pledged to create space for a tech startup incubator, artist studios, and public open space. The agreement also includes requirements for participation by minority and women-owned businesses in the construction process.
> 
> The state, the city, and Amazon pledged to kick in $5 million each for workforce development initiatives, such as technology training programs targeted at local public housing residents and high school students — which, of course, also furthers Amazon’s goal of staffing up in a tight labor market.
> 
> DON’T FORGET NASHVILLE
> Although it wouldn’t qualify as a “headquarters,” Nashville won 5,000 jobs, with Tennessee kicking in $102 million in tax incentives including a job subsidy worth $13,000 per head.
> 
> Both the city and the state components of the incentive package will have to be approved by various legislative bodies.


Offering a corporation *tax subsidized *jobs :mj4


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MRS. REAP! WARM ME UP (before i freeze to death on youuuuu) said:


> Incredibly sad to see that corporate social welfare wins the day again and again.
> 
> 
> 
> Offering a corporation *tax subsidized *jobs :mj4


Not only that but in a place that doesn't even need them :mj4


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

This isn't even one of the worst corporate social welfare deals in America. There are thousands of such deals all across the board.

The biggest welfare queens outside of the government itself are the corporations if you take into account the money spent per corporation vs the money spent per individual. Bar none.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

at some point these individual acts stop losing meaning cos imposing bad ideas are exclusively what the government exists for.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/11/ron-perlman-boycott-georgia-film-production-election-abrams-kemp-1202021988/



> *Ron Perlman and More Boycott Georgia Film and TV Production Over Election Results*
> 
> A boycott against film and television production in Georgia is growing following the November 16 announcement that Democrat Stacey Abrams officially conceded to Republican Brian Kemp in the state’s gubernatorial election. Abrams, who was backed by such Hollywood heavyweights as Oprah Winfrey, said she plans to file a federal lawsuit over the “gross mismanagement of Georgia’s election system.”
> 
> The election had been mired in controversy over absentee and provisional ballots, including 27 counties having to conduct a second review of provisional ballots cast because would-be voters didn’t appear on the voter rolls.
> 
> Hollywood’s boycott against Georgia over the handling of election results was kickstarted by Frank Rich, an executive producer on HBO’s “Veep” and “Succession.” Rich reacted to Kemp’s impending victory by writing on social media, “If Kemp wins in Georgia, Hollywood should put its money where its mouth is and pull all production out of the state.”
> 
> Read More:Ron Perlman Did Something Unexpected Before Shaking Harvey Weinstein’s Hand: ‘I Pissed All Over My Hand’
> 
> Actors such as Ron Perlman, Alyssa Milano, and Bradley Whitford answered Rich’s call. “Happy to lead the exodus,” the former “Hellboy” star wrote. “To all my friends who are studio and network executives, if you choose to shoot movies and TV in Georgia, don’t bother to call me.”
> 
> “There are over 20 productions shooting in Georgia,” Milano said. “Is the entertainment industry willing to support the economy of a totally corrupt state that suppresses democracy; where the winner isn’t the best choice for the people but the best schemer or crook?”
> 
> “The West Wing” favorite Whitford announced his Georgia boycott by sounding off on Kemp. “[He’s] a corrupt, homophobic, unapologetic disenfranchiser of African American voters,” the actor write on Twitter. “If he seizes power, Hollywood needs to use it’s leverage and pull out of Georgia. Studios need to put their money where their mouth is and stand up to hate.”
> 
> Georgia is one of the biggest states for film and television production. Marvel has shot many of its superhero films in Georgia, for instance, while AMC’s blockbuster series “The Walking Dead” also films in the state, among dozens of other titles.


Are you fucking kidding me? I was completely against Kemp, but this is ridiculous. He got 50.2% of the vote, so why does my whole state need to be punished? Literally, a cunt hair under half voted against him.

Do they know that the movie/tv production areas in Georgia are blue and voted for Abrams? If they get their way they're gong to hurt people in Atlanta, not the rural areas.

Also, let's say again that they get their way, well then most of the resident movie/tv production people that tend to vote Democrat will move to other states to get jobs. So, there will be less Democrat voters in Georgia. Georgia is on track to be a swing state and later blue and their grand idea is for blue voters to leave. Genius.

What exactly were regular people supposed to do besides go vote and boost for their candidate? I can't make Brian Kemp step down as Secretary of State before the election. I can't force a federal judge to rule votes should be counted or restore voting rights to those wrongfully stripped of them. I can't make our voting machines new, with a paper trail, and not run on fucking Windows XP. I can say I'm pissed about it, but as long as they have power, what's my option for changing it besides voting?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Even Abrams has spoke out against that. Not a good look for Hollywood. So childish they can't even tolerate losing one election.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.indiewire.com/2018/11/r...m-production-election-abrams-kemp-1202021988/
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me? I was completely against Kemp, but this is ridiculous. He got 50.2% of the vote, so why does my whole state need to be punished? Literally, a cunt hair under half voted against him.
> 
> Do they know that the movie/tv production areas in Georgia are blue and voted for Abrams? If they get their way they're gong to hurt people in Atlanta, not the rural areas.
> 
> Also, let's say again that they get their way, well then most of the resident movie/tv production people that tend to vote Democrat will move to other states to get jobs. So, there will be less Democrat voters in Georgia. Georgia is on track to be a swing state and later blue and their grand idea is for blue voters to leave. Genius.
> 
> What exactly were regular people supposed to do besides go vote and boost for their candidate? I can't make Brian Kemp step down as Secretary of State before the election. I can't force a federal judge to rule votes should be counted or restore voting rights to those wrongfully stripped of them. I can't make our voting machines new, with a paper trail, and not run on fucking Windows XP. I can say I'm pissed about it, but as long as they have power, what's my option for changing it besides voting?


Kemp stole the election with all the voter suppression. If everyone was allowed to vote he would not have won.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> Even Abrams has spoke out against that. Not a good look for Hollywood. So childish they can't even tolerate losing one election.


Not good optics when the person you were supporting calls you out in your behavior. Hollywood thinks it has the pulse of society and people will fall in line. Hollywood has been becoming relevant for a while now


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Kemp stole the election with all the voter suppression. If everyone was allowed to vote he would not have won.


Yeah, I agree with you, but how does Hollywood pulling out all movie and tv production help? Red voters in rural areas won't feel the pain, but those that voted for Abrams will and there will be less Democrat voters for the next election.

Out of the ones I've seen the only celeb talking about boycotting that actually mentioned the very important runoff for Secretary of State on Dec. 5th here in Georgia, was Bradley Whitford. John Barrow, the Democrat, is running on reforming the whole election system. Might supporting him not be a better way to bring about the changes wanted, instead of just throwing a tantrum.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Yeah, I agree with you, but how does Hollywood pulling out all movie and tv production help? Red voters in rural areas won't feel the pain, but those that voted for Abrams will and their will be less Democrat voters for the next election.
> 
> Out of the ones I've seen the only celeb talking about boycotting that actually mentioned the very important runoff for Secretary of State on Dec. 5th here in Georgia, was Bradley Whitford. John Barrow, the Democrat, is running on reforming the whole election system. Might supporting him not be a better way to bring about the changes wanted, instead of just throwing a tantrum.




Maybe their logic is the state let all that stuff happened. It won't help anything, and it won't last long. Its just Hollywood grandstanding.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Kemp stole the election with all the voter suppression. If everyone was allowed to vote he would not have won.


:lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> :lol


 Are you claiming what I said is not true? Or laughing because it is true?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Are you claiming what I said is not true? Or laughing because it is true?


I'm laughing because you only care about "cheating" in voting when you think your team is the "victim" :lol No word from you when the recounts found more votes for Donald Trump in 2016 and you were awfully quiet when Texas Democrats tried to get illegal immigrants to vote for them :lol and you only cared about Florida because you thought the Democrats were going to win :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> I'm laughing because you only care about "cheating" in voting when you think your team is the "victim" :lol No word from you when the recounts found more votes for Donald Trump in 2016 and you were awfully quiet when Texas Democrats tried to get illegal immigrants to vote for them :lol and you only cared about Florida because you thought the Democrats were going to win :lol


Illegals didn't try to vote in TX that was bullshit, and no legit source reported that. And right after that BS site reported it, it died off pretty quickly.

As for recounts finding more votes for Trump, he still lost by over 3 million votes LOL So what is your point exactly on that? 

I don't care who wins, as long as all the votes are counted and votes are not being suppressed. But keep making strawman arguments it what you do best


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Illegals didn't try to vote in TX that was bullshit, and no legit source reported that. And right after that BS site reported it, it died off pretty quickly.
> 
> As for recounts finding more votes for Trump, he still lost by over 3 million votes LOL So what is your point exactly on that?
> 
> I don't care who wins, as long as all the votes are counted and votes are not being suppressed. But keep making strawman arguments it what you do best


Why do you change what people write? I specifically stated Democrats tried to get illegals to vote . You didn't care and said it was a myth, but you and I know for a fact, you'd be bitching about it if the Republicans were doing this. You believe anything with less evidence, as long as its the Republicans that look bad. 

You proved my point about the voter suppression and the recounts. You didn't care that they found votes in favor of Trump because he was the "victim" of a potential "voter supression". Which is why you try to justify it by bringing up that he lost by less than 3 million (not more). You showed blatant hypocrisy and even tried to lie by making the margin bigger than it was. 

The fact of the matter is this, you don't care how the Democrats win, as long as they do win. Which is why your outrage about any potential voter suppression means absolutely nothing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Why do you change what people write? I specifically stated Democrats tried to get illegals to vote . You didn't care and said it was a myth, but you and I know for a fact, you'd be bitching about it if the Republicans were doing this. You believe anything with less evidence, as long as its the Republicans that look bad.
> 
> You proved my point about the voter suppression and the recounts. You didn't care that they found votes in favor of Trump because he was the "victim" of a potential "voter supression". Which is why you try to justify it by bringing up that he lost by less than 3 million (not more). You showed blatant hypocrisy and even tried to lie by making the margin bigger than it was.
> 
> The fact of the matter is this, you don't care how the Democrats win, as long as they do win. Which is why your outrage about any potential voter suppression means absolutely nothing.


There is zero evidence of that claim. Show the evidence. Trump claimed 3 million illegals voted in 2016 and we all know that was bullshit Trump even put together a team to prove it and they found zero evidence of it and it got disbanded.

So if you want to claim illegals tried to vote in TX show real evidence not just a claim by a right winged nutjob group.

I don't think you understand what voter suppression is. If they do a recount and someone gains votes that is not voter suppression. You seriously don't want to go with that logic do you LOL You can't be serious. Voter suppression is kicking people off the ballots, or moving polling stations or closing them, or trying to force voter IDS.

Counting overvotes and the mail-in ballots, and gaining votes is not voter suppression. Seriously, dude, you have no clue what you are talking about. Please inform yourself better before you embarrass yourself some more


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Is anyone else bemused that the right wing media is trying to create a new Pelosi/Hilary in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? While some establishment democrats are saying she is boosted by Russia to divide the party. :lol

Like I don't even agree with AOC with most of her positions, but the attacks on her makes me feel she is somehow a very important person even though she's not even sworn in yet to her first term in the House. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Is anyone else bemused that the right wing media is trying to create a new Pelosi/Hilary in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? While some establishment democrats are saying she is boosted by Russia to divide the party. :lol
> 
> Like I don't even agree with AOC with most of her positions, but the attacks on her makes me feel she is somehow a very important person even though she's not even sworn in yet to her first term in the House. :lol


its because the right wing fears AOC so they are trying to bury her before she even gets started.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Is anyone else bemused that the right wing media is trying to create a new Pelosi/Hilary in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? While some establishment democrats are saying she is boosted by Russia to divide the party. :lol
> 
> Like I don't even agree with AOC with most of her positions, but the attacks on her makes me feel she is somehow a very important person even though she's not even sworn in yet to her first term in the House. :lol


She bit the hand that feeds. She made herself a target


----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> Is anyone else bemused that the right wing media is trying to create a new Pelosi/Hilary in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? While some establishment democrats are saying she is boosted by Russia to divide the party. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Like I don't even agree with AOC with most of her positions, but the attacks on her makes me feel she is somehow a very important person even though she's not even sworn in yet to her first term in the House. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />


Corbyn has had the same treatment, he's been destroyed both in and outside the party. I wasn't before, but I'm more inclined to believe that he brought a lot of it himself, but he's definitely been the harshest treated MP I've witnessed in my lifetime. 

Need him gone from the party leadership.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> The Women’s March founder is urging the group’s leadership to resign over anti-Semitism and anti-gay rhetoric, just days after Linda Sarsour suggested Jewish people have dual loyalties.
> 
> Teresa Shook, a retired lawyer who was behind the nationwide women’s march following the election of President Trump, published a statement on Monday urging the current leaders of the movement to step aside.
> 
> “In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti- LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs,” she wrote on Facebook.
> 
> She singled out the group’s board members Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez.
> 
> Under their leadership, the Women’s March was constantly under fire for allegiance with anti-Semitic groups and comments that some deemed anti-Semitic.
> 
> Just last week, Sarsour was condemned for saying the criticism against Minnesota Congresswoman-elect Ilhan Omar over her support for boycott of Israel is led by “folks who masquerade as progressives but always choose their allegiance to Israel over their commitment to democracy and free speech.”
> 
> Omar recently came out in support of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against Israel, despite previously saying she doesn’t support it. She was also criticized for tweeting that “Israel has hypnotized the world.”
> 
> The American Jewish Committee, one of the oldest Jewish advocacy groups in America, accused Sarsour of anti-Semitism.
> 
> “Accusing Jews of dual loyalty is one of the oldest and most pernicious antisemitic tropes. No surprise to see it coming from @LSarsour. How long will progressive leaders continue to look the other way in the face of this hate?” the organization tweeted on Friday.
> 
> The progressive group’s continued alliance with the Nation of Islam and its leader Louis Farrakhan also drew scrutiny.
> 
> Mallory was accused of contributing to anti-Semitism after she was seen attending an event where Farrakhan said “the powerful Jew is my enemy.”
> 
> The Women’s March, as a group, defended Mallory and she herself said “I go into difficult spaces.” On social media, the activist said Farrakhan is the “GOAT,” meaning the “greatest of all time.”
> 
> ALYSSA MILANO WON’T SPEAK AT WOMEN’S MARCH UNLESS ORGANIZERS CONDEMN LOUIS FARRAKHAN
> 
> Last year, Sarsour blamed “the Jewish media” for her and Farrakhan’s controversial reputation and pushed back against any accusations of anti-Semitism.
> Why won't more Dems denounce Louis Farrakhan's hate speech?Video
> 
> Actress and activist Alyssa Milano last month criticized Mallory and the Women’s March not disavowing Farrakhan in strong terms.
> 
> “Any time that there is any bigotry or anti-Semitism in that respect, it needs to be called out and addressed,” Milano told The Advocate, noting that she won’t speak at the next Women’s March if asked. “I’m disappointed in the leadership of the Women’s March that they haven’t done it adequately.”
> 
> 
> 
> The current leaders of the group fired back against the founder of the movement, saying her attack was done “irresponsibly,” but admitted the wrongdoing.
> 
> “We are imperfect. We don’t know everything and we have caused harm,” the leaders of the group wrote on Facebook.
> 
> “At times we have responded with hurt. But we are committed to learning. We will continue to work through the good and the bad, the impact and the harm — of building an intersectional movement that our daughters, and our daughters’ daughters can be proud of,” they added.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/womens-march-founder-calls-on-linda-sarsour-other-activists-to-resign-over-anti-semitism-anti-gay-beliefs


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> She bit the hand that feeds. She made herself a target


I don't even understand what this means. Are you saying right wing media made her?



birthday_massacre said:


> its because the right wing fears AOC so they are trying to bury her before she even gets started.


I think it is more like finding a new bogeyman to attack. Pelosi is old news and not even considered left enough by some democrats. Need someone more leftist to attack.



Draykorinee said:


> Corbyn has had the same treatment, he's been destroyed both in and outside the party. I wasn't before, but I'm more inclined to believe that he brought a lot of it himself, but he's definitely been the harshest treated MP I've witnessed in my lifetime.
> 
> Need him gone from the party leadership.


Nah, Corbyn just stayed long enough in politics for everybody to have something to hate about him. AOC hasn't even started.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I don't even understand what this means. Are you saying right wing media made her?


The establishment is gunning for her as you said. She went after Pelosi, who is a big part of the establishment, so she made herself a target for them.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> its because the right wing fears AOC so they are trying to bury her before she even gets started.


:mj4 :ha

I am sure the right wing fears the lady who said "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs" and thought she was going to be inaugurated into congress.

Did she get the red wave she asked for by chance?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I don't think the R's are worried about AOC. I think they're trying to make her the future of the D's because she's completely in over her head right now. She just says free shit for everyone without understanding how to make that work/pay for it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> I don't think the R's are worried about AOC. I think they're trying to make her the future of the D's because she's completely in over her head right now. She just says free shit for everyone without understanding how to make that work/pay for it.


OH the good old how to make that work/pay for it yet no one ever asks Republicans that question when talking about huge tax cuts for the rich or how to pay for all these wars or the troops going to the border. Funny how that is.


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Undertaker23RKO said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the R's are worried about AOC. I think they're trying to make her the future of the D's because she's completely in over her head right now. She just says free shit for everyone without understanding how to make that work/pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> OH the good old how to make that work/pay for it yet no one ever asks Republicans that question when talking about huge tax cuts for the rich or how to pay for all these wars or the troops going to the border. Funny how that is.
Click to expand...

Funny isn't it. Let's cut taxes but raise spending on the military. 

When it comes to keeping people alive it's always how do you pay for it, when it comes to bombing shithole countries it's always how much more debt can we add for you please.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Funny isn't it. Let's cut taxes but raise spending on the military.
> 
> When it comes to keeping people alive it's always how do you pay for it, when it comes to bombing shithole countries it's always how much more debt can we add for you please.


When have I ever advocated for increased military spending? I'll wait. Instead of using whataboutisms maybe you could try and defend this $32 trillion plan (low estimate) she's proposed. A simple tax increase/cutting some military funding isn't going to get you there.


----------



## Draykorinee

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny isn't it. Let's cut taxes but raise spending on the military.
> 
> When it comes to keeping people alive it's always how do you pay for it, when it comes to bombing shithole countries it's always how much more debt can we add for you please.
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ever advocated for increased military spending? I'll wait. Instead of using whataboutisms maybe you could try and defend this $32 trillion plan (low estimate) she's proposed. A simple tax increase/cutting some military funding isn't going to get you there.
Click to expand...

Was a general they say, hence why I didn't specifically quote you.

The $32 trillion thing is always erroneously used, the study suggested overall spending on health care would be the same, so instead of paying insurance premiums you'll be paying taxes.



> The study found U.S. health care spending under Sanders' plan would drop over time — about $300 billion lower in 2031.


Funny how people cut that bit out when they talk about the study.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Funny isn't it. Let's cut taxes but raise spending on the military.
> 
> When it comes to keeping people alive it's always how do you pay for it, when it comes to bombing shithole countries it's always how much more debt can we add for you please.


From what I have read, I wouldn't want money spent on healthcare for all, and I think military spending is high.

That has nothing to do with keeping people alive.

Part of the reason US medical spending is so high, is because we are a fat country, who overindulges on TV and shitty foods.

Yet, you have people in government now that won't deregulate food stamps, and other programs, so you can not eat the shit that causes diabetes, heart disease, and other complication that will wind up in the hospital. 

America has an obesity problem, but if you talk about it, you are fat shaming, yet that obesity problem could help tremendously towards making healthcare affordable for everyone.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Was a general they say, hence why I didn't specifically quote you.
> 
> The $32 trillion thing is always erroneously used, the study suggested overall spending on health care would be the same, so instead of paying insurance premiums you'll be paying taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how people cut that bit out when they talk about the study.


Okay so let's say $300 billion is saved every year then (which is not what that study says). Now you're only at $29 trillion on low end estimates. Still completely unachievable.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> From what I have read, I wouldn't want money spent on healthcare for all, and I think military spending is high.
> 
> That has nothing to do with keeping people alive.
> 
> Part of the reason US medical spending is so high, is because we are a fat country, who overindulges on TV and shitty foods.
> 
> Yet, you have people in government now that won't deregulate food stamps, and other programs, so you can not eat the shit that causes diabetes, heart disease, and other complication that will wind up in the hospital.
> 
> America has an obesity problem, but if you talk about it, you are fat shaming, yet that obesity problem could help tremendously towards making healthcare affordable for everyone.


There are unhealthy people and there are willfully unhealthy people. It's the latter group we need to worry about because they're an insanely large group and they would place a tremendous burden upon the system. 

Not only that but if they had more access to 'free' care, it could enable them to keep living that lifestyle and they could end up abusing the system. I mean they already abuse their own bodies so why wouldn't they?


----------



## Draykorinee

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was a general they say, hence why I didn't specifically quote you.
> 
> The $32 trillion thing is always erroneously used, the study suggested overall spending on health care would be the same, so instead of paying insurance premiums you'll be paying taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how people cut that bit out when they talk about the study.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so let's say $300 billion is saved every year then (which is not what that study says). Now you're only at $29 trillion on low end estimates. Still completely unachievable.
Click to expand...

Not if you take the money people spend on insurance premiums, $34 trillion, and put it in to taxes. The Koch study you referenced clearly showed a net saving for the users of the service. 

The big issue is you'll never get the tax raises through, so you'll always have an objectively inferior healthcare system that forces 30 million people to avoid going to hospital and bankrupts over 500000 people a year.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Not if you take the money people spend on insurance premiums, $34 trillion, and put it in to taxes. The Koch study you referenced clearly showed a net saving for the users of the service.


But what about people who don't want to pay insurance premiums, because they live a healthy lifestyle, and don't care to see the doctor.

those people are going to be paying out more money, because you are taxing them to take care of a person who's problem they have nothing to do with.



> The big issue is you'll never get the tax raises through, so you'll always have an objectively inferior healthcare system that forces 30 million people to avoid going to hospital and bankrupts over 500000 people a year.


I agree with you the healthcare system is very flawed.

We disagree on how to get there, privatizing healthcare, and taking ower away from hospitals will make much more sense.

Part of the reason bankruptcy is rampant in the health field, is you don't get the option of knowing the pricing before you go in.

You could pay 24K for your surgery, you could pay 54K for the same exact surgery, and not know it until you get a bill, that isn't right in any way shape or form.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Not if you take the money people spend on insurance premiums, $34 trillion, and put it in to taxes. The Koch study you referenced clearly showed a net saving for the users of the service.
> 
> The big issue is you'll never get the tax raises through, so you'll always have an objectively inferior healthcare system that forces 30 million people to avoid going to hospital and bankrupts over 500000 people a year.


Show me where $34 trillion is saved on insurance premiums. Over 10 years like her plan.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> There are unhealthy people and there are willfully unhealthy people. It's the latter group we need to worry about because they're an insanely large group and they would place a tremendous burden upon the system.
> 
> Not only that but if they had more access to 'free' care, it could enable them to keep living that lifestyle and they could end up abusing the system. I mean they already abuse their own bodies so why wouldn't they?


I just don't believe throwing money at the problem fixes things.

and it is weird that the left has started with the stereotypical "rich white family" solution.

I have the same argument about minimum wage, you have to change the behaviors of people before you start worrying about fixing the problem they have nothing to do with.

https://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

This chart shows the adult obesity rate since 1990, and it just goes up. The lowest is 22% in Colorado, and every single one shows the data has gone up YoY.

Hypertension, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart failure, all can be treated by just not stuffing junk in your mouth every day and doing standard excercise, but people just don't want to.


----------



## Draykorinee

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you take the money people spend on insurance premiums, $34 trillion, and put it in to taxes. The Koch study you referenced clearly showed a net saving for the users of the service.
> 
> The big issue is you'll never get the tax raises through, so you'll always have an objectively inferior healthcare system that forces 30 million people to avoid going to hospital and bankrupts over 500000 people a year.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where $34 trillion is saved on insurance premiums. Over 10 years like her plan.
Click to expand...

It doesn't, the study showed a $2 trillion healthcare saving if they went with the medicare for all.
https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/medicare-all-32-trillion-new-costs-or-2-trillion-savings

If course this is under certain scenarios.

I don't think there is any definitive numbers that can be used. I think the likelihood is that you surely can't get a worse system than you have now where you are literally the most expensive per capita in the entire world yet 30million people don't even use the service.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I just don't believe throwing money at the problem fixes things.
> 
> and it is weird that the left has started with the stereotypical "rich white family" solution.
> 
> I have the same argument about minimum wage, you have to change the behaviors of people before you start worrying about fixing the problem they have nothing to do with.
> 
> https://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/
> 
> This chart shows the adult obesity rate since 1990, and it just goes up. The lowest is 22% in Colorado, and every single one shows the data has gone up YoY.
> 
> Hypertension, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart failure, all can be treated by just not stuffing junk in your mouth every day and doing standard excercise, but people just don't want to.


I used to be empathetic to people about that and I'm just not anymore. It's super easy to maintain a reasonable weight.


----------



## Draykorinee

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you take the money people spend on insurance premiums, $34 trillion, and put it in to taxes. The Koch study you referenced clearly showed a net saving for the users of the service.
> 
> 
> 
> But what about people who don't want to pay insurance premiums, because they live a healthy lifestyle, and don't care to see the doctor.
> 
> those people are going to be paying out more money, because you are taxing them to take care of a person who's problem they have nothing to do with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The big issue is you'll never get the tax raises through, so you'll always have an objectively inferior healthcare system that forces 30 million people to avoid going to hospital and bankrupts over 500000 people a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with you the healthcare system is very flawed.
> 
> We disagree on how to get there, privatizing healthcare, and taking ower away from hospitals will make much more sense.
> 
> Part of the reason bankruptcy is rampant in the health field, is you don't get the option of knowing the pricing before you go in.
> 
> You could pay 24K for your surgery, you could pay 54K for the same exact surgery, and not know it until you get a bill, that isn't right in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

Denmark healthcare is run privately but funded as a single payer system. I like that model better than the NHS.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> It doesn't, the study showed a $2 trillion healthcare saving if they went with the medicare for all.
> https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/medicare-all-32-trillion-new-costs-or-2-trillion-savings
> 
> If course this is under certain scenarios.
> 
> I don't think there is any definitive numbers that can be used. I think the likelihood is that you surely can't get a worse system than you have now where you are literally the most expensive per capita in the entire world yet 30million people don't even use the service.


I absolutely agree we have the worst system possible. Of the three big factors to healthcare (obviously you only get to pick two): good care, good premiums, and universality we probably have none.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065289231977738240
:sodone 

If she runs I'll vote for her


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> When have I ever advocated for increased military spending? I'll wait. Instead of using whataboutisms maybe you could try and defend this $32 trillion plan (low estimate) she's proposed. A simple tax increase/cutting some military funding isn't going to get you there.


You do understand that $32 trillion is not on top of what it already costs right? Of course, you don't know that judging by your posts. It would actually save money under her plan


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://news.sky.com/story/police-officer-karate-kicked-in-violent-attack-on-london-street-11557984
*
Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation Ken Marsh said police could start letting violent suspects go if the risk is too high.

He said: "Are we now in a society where, if we think we can't detain somebody, we just let them go? It's just not worth it.

"We're going to come to a point where we're going to start pushing messages out to our colleagues: 'Risk-assess it dynamically and, if you think you can't detain a person, just let them go.'

"We don't come to work to get assaulted, and if we're not going to be backed up in what we're doing then what is the point?"*

I don't even know how to react to this hilarity.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065289231977738240
> :sodone
> 
> If she runs I'll vote for her


:sodone :sodone :sodone

LOVE HER :mark:


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> :sodone :sodone :sodone
> 
> LOVE HER :mark:


Well she has more balls than the entire Democratic Party. Sadly, they won't run her.



Undertaker23RKO said:


> https://news.sky.com/story/police-officer-karate-kicked-in-violent-attack-on-london-street-11557984
> *
> Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation Ken Marsh said police could start letting violent suspects go if the risk is too high.
> 
> He said: "Are we now in a society where, if we think we can't detain somebody, we just let them go? It's just not worth it.
> 
> "We're going to come to a point where we're going to start pushing messages out to our colleagues: 'Risk-assess it dynamically and, if you think you can't detain a person, just let them go.'
> 
> "We don't come to work to get assaulted, and if we're not going to be backed up in what we're doing then what is the point?"*
> 
> I don't even know how to react to this hilarity.


Stop being shit UK


----------



## Greatsthegreats

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Lets talk about 'tics, baby

Let's talk about you and me

Lets talk about all the good things and the bad things


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






Might have been posted before but important video regarding British politics. Watch all of it.

Section 127 of the 2003 communications act needs repealing.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> Might have been posted before but important video regarding British politics. Watch all of it.
> 
> Section 127 of the 2003 communications act needs repealing.


The ad at the end was fucking terrifying. If I look as the backs of those people, I wouldn't be surprised to find a battery panel and a bluetooth receiver.

And you know what type of society has morality laws? A theocracy.


----------



## Hawkke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> The ad at the end was fucking terrifying. If I look as the backs of those people, I wouldn't be surprised to find a battery panel and a bluetooth receiver.
> 
> And you know what type of society has morality laws? A theocracy.


Modern far left is a theocracy, but instead of being based on a higher power deity, their deity is power itself and themselves. Power used in the guise of "equality," but really is only to destroy those who don't follow the group think by any method, sexual accusations, social destruction, home invasion, and it will only get worse.

When one worships themselves and their identities above all else they make themselves the "god" and all who goes against them are heretics.. And we know what that means.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Hawkke said:


> Modern far left is a theocracy, but instead of being based on a higher power deity, their deity is power itself and themselves. Power used in the guise of "equality," but really is only to destroy those who don't follow the group think by any method, sexual accusations, social destruction, home invasion, and it will only get worse.
> 
> When one worships themselves and their identities above all else they make themselves the "god" and all who goes against them are heretics.. And we know what that means.


Is that not a tad OTT?

The modern far left have threatened to invade your home and destroy society have they? Where on earth did you get that from?


----------



## Hawkke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Is that not a tad OTT?
> 
> The modern far left have threatened to invade your home and destroy society have they? Where on earth did you get that from?


Invade my home, no, I am a nobody on the internet, but Tucker Carlson and Portland Oregon.. pretty much as a whole, says hello. You may disagree with my verbiage, but the point remains the same.

Maybe some work by an independent journalist will help bring some focus. I'm sure it will lead to you other sources of news as well.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe02lGcO-ahAURWuxAJnjdA


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So, this isn't really politics, but we don't have a political correctness thread anymore and it's not big enough to be it's own thread. I just thought it was too dumb not to share.

https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/2018/11/22/charlie-brown-thanksgiving-racist-franklin-scene/#1



> *‘Charlie Brown Thanksgiving’ Viewers Upset by "Racist" Scene*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tonight, ABC aired the classic animated Peanuts special A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving, and while many fans tuned in for the warmth of nostalgia to kick off their holiday season, many came away with a less than fuzzy feeling when it came to how one specific character was treated.
> 
> The special centers around a somewhat impromptu holiday meal that happens when Peppermint Patty invites herself and several others over to Charlie Brown and Sally's house for Thanksgiving despite the fact that they're preparing to go to their grandmother's for the feast. After a little help from Linus, who convinces Charlie they can have two Thanksgivings, as well as Woodstock and Snoopy who do the cooking, a friends' Thanksgiving is on.
> 
> The meal -- buttered toast, pretzel sticks, popcorn, jelly beans, and an ice cream sundae -- is served at a table in the backyard, and while all's well that ends well with everyone ending up invited to Charlie and Sally's grandmother's meal, it's the seating arrangements at this unusual dinner that has some fans on social media heated. Franklin, the one and only black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that, he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper furniture.
> 
> It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.
> 
> Want to see how viewers reacted to the Franklin situation? Read on for more and be sure to let us know your take in the comments.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065418497977667584
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065417753820102657
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065416440998752256
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065412216432836608
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065413736423456768
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065415369626697728
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065417159592079360


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065289231977738240
> :sodone
> 
> If she runs I'll vote for her


Tulsi is one of the few I'm excited for, though I think she'll get screwed. I'd like to see her run as an Interdependent honestly.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Lmao look at the reaction to that tweet from both sides of the aisle, Tulsi ain't getting anywhere on the national scene. :lol Even the people who agree with her are slighting her over the Assad stuff.

Too bad, Tulsi Gabbard would make a great president. :shrug


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Lmao look at the reaction to that tweet from both sides of the aisle, Tulsi ain't getting anywhere on the national scene. :lol Even the people who agree with her are slighting her over the Assad stuff.
> 
> Too bad, Tulsi Gabbard would make a great president. :shrug


She'd be a great useful idiot :draper2

If you're going to suck sweaty dictator dick at least suck the sweaty dick of dictators who are useful to your interests

Tulsi ain't smart enough to figure that one out

I really wonder sometimes just where people get these ideas about how this person or that person would be a great president

The last almost unambiguously great president was Coolidge, why does anyone think another one is in the pipeline


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

If you don't wanna bomb 'em you must wanna suck their dick! 

Neoconservatism. :lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





Will this vile woman just fuck off already?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Will this vile woman just fuck off already?


Jimmy's not the only person who has figured this out.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1066070127324667904
You can apply the same logic to all the destruction we've caused in Central and South America. Maaaaaaaybe there wouldn't be caravans of people fleeing their homes if the USA would stop fucking up their countries.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Jimmy's not the only person who has figured this out.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1066070127324667904
> You can apply the same logic to all the destruction we've caused in Central and South America. Maaaaaaaybe there wouldn't be caravans of people fleeing their homes if the USA would stop fucking up their countries.


Playing the devil's advocate but Europe was eager to get in on the Mid East fighting, not like they were sitting back minding their own business.

In this case, the US is the baby Daddy leaving the kid with the now single Mom (Europe). :laugh:

Let's be honest though, people have already forgotten about the Iraq/Afgan war, the destruction of Libya, the fuckery in Syria and the Saudi's telling the migrants to fuck off due to "cultural differences". Nobody wants to deal with the aftermath.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Playing the devil's advocate but Europe was eager to get in on the Mid East fighting, not like they were sitting back minding their own business.
> 
> In this case, the US is the baby Daddy leaving the kid with the now single Mom (Europe). :laugh:
> 
> Let's be honest though, people have already forgotten about the Iraq/Afgan war, the destruction of Libya, the fuckery in Syria and the Saudi's telling the migrants to fuck off due to "cultural differences". Nobody wants to deal with the aftermath.


Certain countries in Europe might have been willing participants but the destruction of the ME has always been a USA led operation. Europe shoulders some of the blame for the migrant crisis but the majority still lands on the USA.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Certain countries in Europe might have been willing participants but the destruction of the ME has always been a USA led operation. Europe shoulders some of the blame for the migrant crisis but the majority still lands on the USA.


Oh yes, not saying otherwise! 

As much as Europe virtue signals, I wish they'd actually hold the US accountable when it does stupid shit instead of joining in on the fun. Honestly I wish the people held the Politicians that ok all this responsible!


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Oh yes, not saying otherwise!
> 
> As much as Europe virtue signals, I wish they'd actually hold the US accountable when it does stupid shit instead of joining in on the fun. Honestly I wish the people held the Politicians that ok all this responsible!


Sometimes the rest of the world does try to stand up the the USA. It doesn't do a damned bit of good.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065973745070813185


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/venezuela-zte/



> *How ZTE helps Venezuela create China-style social control*
> 
> _Chinese telecoms giant ZTE is helping Venezuela build a system that monitors citizen behavior through a new identification card. The "fatherland card," already used by the government to track voting, worries many in Venezuela and beyond_.
> 
> In April 2008, former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez dispatched Justice Ministry officials to visit counterparts in the Chinese technology hub of Shenzhen. Their mission, according to a member of the Venezuela delegation, was to learn the workings of China’s national identity card program.
> 
> Chávez, a decade into his self-styled socialist revolution, wanted help to provide ID credentials to the millions of Venezuelans who still lacked basic documentation needed for tasks like voting or opening a bank account. Once in Shenzhen, though, the Venezuelans realized a card could do far more than just identify the recipient.
> 
> RELATED CONTENT
> 
> 
> In Venezuela, new cryptocurrency is nowhere to be found
> 
> 
> A journey on a caravan of misery
> 
> 
> How a defrocked judge became the chief legal enforcer for Maduro's Venezuela
> 
> There, at the headquarters of Chinese telecom giant ZTE Corp, they learned how China, using smart cards, was developing a system that would help Beijing track social, political and economic behavior. Using vast databases to store information gathered with the card’s use, a government could monitor everything from a citizen’s personal finances to medical history and voting activity.
> 
> “What we saw in China changed everything,” said the member of the Venezuelan delegation, technical advisor Anthony Daquin. His initial amazement, he said, gradually turned to fear that such a system could lead to abuses of privacy by Venezuela’s government. “They were looking to have citizen control.”
> 
> The following year, when he raised concerns with Venezuelan officials, Daquin told Reuters, he was detained, beaten and extorted by intelligence agents. They knocked several teeth out with a handgun and accused him of treasonous behavior, Daquin said, prompting him to flee the country. Government spokespeople had no comment on Daquin’s account.
> 
> The project languished. But 10 years after the Shenzhen trip, Venezuela is rolling out a new, smart-card ID known as the “carnet de la patria,” or “fatherland card.” The ID transmits data about cardholders to computer servers. The card is increasingly linked by the government to subsidized food, health and other social programs most Venezuelans rely on to survive.
> 
> And ZTE, whose role in the fatherland project is detailed here for the first time, is at the heart of the program.
> 
> As part of a $70 million government effort to bolster “national security,” Venezuela last year hired ZTE to build a fatherland database and create a mobile payment system for use with the card, according to contracts reviewed by Reuters. A team of ZTE employees is now embedded in a special unit within Cantv, the Venezuelan state telecommunications company that manages the database, according to four current and former Cantv employees.
> 
> The fatherland card is troubling some citizens and human-rights groups who believe it is a tool for Chávez’s successor, President Nicolás Maduro, to monitor the populace and allocate scarce resources to his loyalists.
> 
> “It’s blackmail,” Héctor Navarro, one of the founders of the ruling Socialist Party and a former minister under Chávez, said of the fatherland program. “Venezuelans with the cards now have more rights than those without.”
> 
> In a phone interview, Su Qingfeng, the head of ZTE’s Venezuela unit, confirmed ZTE sold Caracas servers for the database and is developing the mobile payment application. The company, he said, violated no Chinese or local laws and has no role in how Venezuela collects or uses cardholder data.
> 
> “We don’t support the government,” he said. “We are just developing our market.”
> 
> An economic meltdown in Venezuela is causing hyperinflation, widespread shortages of food and medicines, and a growing exodus of desperate citizens. Maduro has been sanctioned by the United States and is criticized by governments from France to Canada as increasingly autocratic.
> 
> In that, critics say, Maduro has an ally. The fatherland card, they argue, illustrates how China, through state-linked companies like ZTE, exports technological know-how that can help like-minded governments track, reward and punish citizens.
> 
> The database, according to employees of the card system and screenshots of user data reviewed by Reuters, stores such details as birthdays, family information, employment and income, property owned, medical history, state benefits received, presence on social media, membership of a political party and whether a person voted.
> 
> So far, the government’s disclosure of ZTE’s involvement in the fatherland project has been limited to a passing reference in a February 2017 press release that credited the company with helping to “fortify” the underlying database.
> 
> Venezuela’s government didn’t respond to requests for comment for this article. Nadia Pérez, a spokeswoman for Cantv, the state-run telecoms firm, declined to comment, and Manuel Fernández, the company’s president, didn’t respond to emails or text messages from Reuters. China’s Justice Ministry and its embassy in Caracas didn’t respond to requests for comment. Although ZTE is publicly traded, a Chinese state company is its largest shareholder and the government is a key client.
> 
> ZTE has run afoul of Washington before for dealings with authoritarian governments. The company this year paid $1 billion to settle with the U.S. Commerce Department, one of various penalties after ZTE shipped telecommunications equipment to Iran and North Korea, violating U.S. sanctions and export laws. The Commerce action was sparked by a 2012 Reuters report that ZTE sold Iran a surveillance system, which included U.S. components, to spy on telecommunications by its citizens.
> 
> Legal experts in the United States said it is unclear whether ZTE and other companies that supply the fatherland system are violating U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan leaders by providing tools that critics believe strengthen the government’s grip on power. Fernández, the Cantv president, is one of the targets of those sanctions because of the telecom company’s censorship of the internet in Venezuela, according to a U.S. Treasury Department statement. But the prohibitions thus far are meant primarily to thwart business with Maduro and other top officials themselves, not regular commerce in Venezuela.
> 
> Still, U.S. lawmakers and other critics of Maduro’s rule are concerned about ZTE’s role in Venezuela. “China is in the business of exporting its authoritarianism,” U.S. Senator Marco Rubio told Reuters in an email. “The Maduro regime’s increasing reliance on ZTE in Venezuela is just the latest example of the threat that Chinese state-directed firms pose to U.S. national security interests.”
> 
> To understand how the fatherland card works and how it came to be, Reuters reviewed confidential contracts and internal government documents related to its development. Reporters also interviewed dozens of current and former employees of ZTE, Venezuela’s government and Cantv, or Compañía Anónima Nacional Teléfonos de Venezuela, as the company is formally known. They confirmed details of the project and the outlines of Daquin’s account of its origins.
> 
> 
> 
> “AN ATTEMPT TO CONTROL ME”
> 
> Maduro for the past year has urged citizens to sign up for the new card, calling it essential to “build the new Venezuela.” As many as 18 million people, over half the population, already have, according to government figures.
> 
> “With this card, we are going to do everything from now on,” Maduro said on state television last December.
> 
> To encourage its adoption, the government has granted cash prizes to cardholders for performing civic duties, like rallying voters. It has also given one-time payouts, such as awarding moms enrolled in the card a Mother’s Day bonus of about $2. The payment, last May, was nearly a monthly minimum wage – enough to buy a carton of eggs, given the current pace of inflation.
> 
> Maduro is also taking steps to force the card’s adoption. The government now says Venezuelans need it to receive public benefits including medicine, pensions, food baskets and subsidized fuel. In August, retirees protested outside social security offices and complained the fatherland rule limits access to hard-won pensions.
> 
> Benito Urrea, a 76-year-old diabetic, told Reuters a state doctor recently denied him an insulin prescription and called him “right wing” because he hasn’t enrolled. Like some other Venezuelan citizens, especially those who oppose the Maduro administration, Urrea sees the card with suspicion. “It was an attempt to control me via my needs,” he said in his Caracas apartment.
> 
> Reuters was unable to contact the doctor.
> 
> Using the servers purchased from ZTE, the government is creating a database some citizens fear is identifying Venezuelans who support the government and those who don’t. Some of the information, such as health data, is gathered with card usage. Some is obtained when citizens enroll. Cardholders and local human rights groups told Reuters that administrators ask questions about income, political activities and social media profiles before issuing the card.
> 
> Civil servants are facing particular pressure to enroll, according to more than a dozen state workers. When scanning their cards during a presidential election last May, employees at several government offices were told by bosses to message photos of themselves at polls back to managers, they said. A Justice Ministry document reviewed by Reuters featured a list of state employees who didn’t vote.
> 
> After Chávez became president in 1999, he sought to empower “invisible” Venezuelans who couldn’t access basic services. In the following years, more citizens received documentation, but the cards were fragile and easily forged, according to a 2007 Justice Ministry report.
> 
> The report, reviewed by Reuters, recommended a new, microchip-enabled card that would be harder to counterfeit. No such effort got underway.
> 
> That December, after nearly a decade of soaring popularity, Chávez suffered his first electoral defeat, losing a referendum to scrap term limits. Oil prices plummeted shortly thereafter, hammering the economy.
> 
> Chávez worked to appease his working-class base, including throngs still lacking identity credentials. He sent Daquin, the top information security advisor at the Justice Ministry, to China.
> 
> The technology Daquin and colleagues learned about in Shenzhen underpinned what would become China’s “Social Credit System.” The still-evolving system, part of which uses “smart citizen cards” developed by ZTE, grades citizens based on behavior including financial solvency and political activity. Good behavior can earn citizens discounts on utilities or loans. Bad marks can get them banned from public transport or their kids blocked from top schools.
> 
> ZTE executives showed the Venezuelans smart cards embedded with radio-frequency identification, or RFID, a technology that enables monitors through radio waves to track location and data. Other cards used so-called Quick Response, or QR, codes, the matrix barcodes now commonly used to store and process information.
> 
> After the trip, Venezuela turned to Cuba, its closest ally, and asked for help creating its own version of RFID cards. “The new goal was Big Data,” Daquin said.
> 
> In June 2008, Venezuela agreed to pay a Cuban state company $172 million to develop six million of the cards, according to a copy of the contract. Cuban government officials didn’t respond to questions about the agreement.
> 
> By 2009, Daquin grew uneasy about the potential for abuses of citizens’ privacy.
> 
> He expressed those concerns to officials including Vladimir Padrino, a general at the time and now Venezuela’s defense minister. The Defense Ministry didn’t respond to phone calls, emails or a letter presented by Reuters for comment.
> 
> On the morning of Nov. 12, at his local Caracas bakery, six armed officials in uniforms of Venezuela’s national intelligence agency awaited Daquin, he told Reuters.
> 
> 18 million
> Over half of Venezuela’s roughly 31 million citizens already hold the fatherland card, the government says
> 
> They showed him photos of his daughter and forced him to drive east toward the town of Guatire. Off a back road, Daquin said, they beat him with pistols, forced a handgun into his mouth and dislodged several teeth, still missing.
> 
> “Why are you betraying the revolution?” one asked.
> 
> They demanded $100,000 for his release, Daquin said.
> 
> Daquin, who says he had been saving for years to buy property, went home, pulled cash from a safe and delivered it to the men. That evening, he booked a flight for himself, his wife and their three children to the United States, where he has lived since, working as an information security consultant.
> 
> His brother, Guy, who also lives in the United States, confirmed Daquin’s account. Documentation reviewed by Reuters corroborates his role at the ministry, and people familiar with Daquin’s work confirmed his involvement in the card project.
> 
> After Daquin fled, the Cuban contract went nowhere, according to another former advisor.
> 
> In March 2013, Chávez died. Maduro, his heir as Socialist Party candidate, was elected president the next month. The lingering oil crash dragged Venezuela into recession.
> 
> 
> 
> “WE’LL FIND OUT”
> 
> With hunger increasing, the government in 2016 launched a program to distribute subsidized food packages. It hired Soltein SA de CV, a company based in Mexico, to design an online platform to track them, according to documents reviewed by Reuters. The platform was the beginning of the database now used for the fatherland system.
> 
> Soltein’s directors, according to LinkedIn profiles, are mostly former Cuban state employees. A person who answered a telephone listed for Soltein denied the firm worked on the fatherland system. A woman at the company’s registered address in the resort city of Cancún told Reuters she had never heard of Soltein.
> 
> The system worked. Nearly 90 percent of the country’s residents now receive the food packages, according to a study published in February by Andres Bello Catholic University and two other universities.
> 
> Now more satisfied with its ability to track handouts, the government sought to know more about the recipients, according to people involved in the project. So it turned back to ZTE.
> 
> The Chinese company, now in Venezuela for about a decade, has over 100 employees working in two floors of a Caracas skyscraper. It first worked with Cantv, the telecommunications company, to enable television programming online.
> 
> Like many state enterprises in Venezuela, Cantv has grown starved for investment. ZTE became a key partner, taking on many projects that once would have fallen to Cantv itself, people familiar with both companies said. ZTE is helping the government build six emergency response centers monitoring Venezuela’s major cities, according to a 2015 press release. In 2016, ZTE began centralizing video surveillance for the government around the country, according to current and former employees.
> 
> In its final push for the fatherland cards, the government no longer considered RFID, according to people familiar with the effort. The location-tracking technology was too costly. Instead, it asked ZTE for help with QR codes, the black-and-white squares smartphone users can scan to get directed to web sites. ZTE developed the codes, at a cost of less than $3 per account, and the government printed the cards, linking them to the Soltein database, these people said.
> 
> In a phone call with Reuters in September, Su, the head of ZTE’s Venezuela business, confirmed the company’s card deal with Cantv. He declined to answer follow-up questions.
> 
> Maduro introduced the cards in December 2016. In a televised address, he held one up, thanked China for lending unspecified support and said “everybody must get one.”
> 
> The ID system, still running on the Soltein platform, hadn’t yet migrated to ZTE servers. Disaster soon struck. In May 2017, hackers broke into the fatherland database.
> 
> The hack was carried out by anonymous anti-Maduro activists known as TeamHDP. The group’s leader, Twitter handle @YoSoyJustincito, said the hack was “extremely simple” and motivated by TeamHDP’s mission to expose Maduro secrets.
> 
> The hacker, who spoke to Reuters by text message, declined to be identified and said he is no longer in Venezuela. A Cantv manager who later helped migrate the database to ZTE servers confirmed details of the breach.
> 
> During the hack, TeamHDP took screenshots of user data and deleted the accounts of government officials, including Maduro. The president later appeared on television scanning his card and receiving an error message: “This person doesn’t exist.”
> 
> Screenshots of the information embedded in various card accounts, shared by TeamHDP with Reuters, included phone numbers, emails, home addresses, participation at Socialist Party events and even whether a person owns a pet. People familiar with the database said the screenshots appear authentic.
> 
> Shortly after the hack, Maduro signed a $70 million contract with Cantv and a state bank for “national security” projects. These included development of a “centralized fatherland database” and a mobile app to process payments, such as the discounted cost of a subsidized food box, associated with the card.
> 
> “Imperialist and unpatriotic factions have tried to harm the nation’s security,” the contract reads. It says an undisclosed portion of the funding would come from the Venezuela China Joint Fund, a bilateral financing program. A related contract, also reviewed by Reuters, assigns the database and payment app projects to ZTE. The document doesn’t disclose how much of the $70 million would go to the Chinese company.
> 
> ZTE declined to comment on financial details of its business in Venezuela. Neither the Venezuelan nor the Chinese government responded to Reuters queries about the contracts.
> 
> In July 2017, Soltein transferred ownership of fatherland data to Cantv, project documents show. A team of a dozen ZTE developers began bolstering the database’s capacity and security, current and former Cantv employees said.
> 
> Among other measures, ZTE installed data storage units built by U.S.-based Dell Technologies Inc, according to one ZTE document. Dell spokeswoman Lauren Lee said ZTE is a client in China but that Dell doesn’t sell equipment to ZTE in Venezuela. She said Dell reviewed its transactions in Venezuela and wasn’t aware of any sale to Cantv, either.
> 
> “Dell is committed to compliance with all applicable laws where we do business,” Lee said in an email. “We expect our customers, partners and suppliers to follow these same laws.”
> 
> In May, Venezuela held elections that were widely discredited by foreign governments after Maduro banned several opposition parties. Ahead of the vote, ruling party officials urged voters to be “grateful” for government largesse dispensed via the fatherland cards. They set up “red point” kiosks near voting booths, where voters could scan their cards and register, Maduro himself promised, for a “fatherland prize.”
> 
> Those who scanned their cards later received a text message thanking them for supporting Maduro, according to several cardholders and one text message reviewed by Reuters. The prizes for voting, however, were never issued, cardholders and people familiar with the system said.
> 
> Current and former Cantv employees say the database registers if, but not how, a person voted. Still, some voters were led to believe the government would know. The belief is having a chilling effect.
> 
> REUTERS INVESTIGATES
> 
> 
> More Reuters investigations and long-form narratives
> 
> 
> Got a confidential news tip? Reuters Investigates offers several ways to securely contact our reporters
> 
> One organizer of a food handout committee in the west-central city of Barinas said government managers had instructed her and colleagues to tell recipients their votes could be tracked. “We’ll find out if you voted for or against,” she said she told them.
> 
> State workers say they are a target. An internal Cantv presentation from last year said the system can feed information from the database to ministries to help “generate statistics and take decisions.” After the vote, government offices including Banco Bicentenario del Pueblo, a state bank, sent Cantv lists with employees’ names to determine whether they had voted, according to the manager who helped set up the servers.
> 
> Banco Bicentenario didn’t respond to a request for comment. Officials at the Economy Ministry, which the bank reports to, didn’t respond to requests, either.
> 
> With personal data now so available, some citizens fear they can lose more than just their jobs, said Mariela Magallanes, an opposition lawmaker who headed a commission that last year investigated how the fatherland card was being linked to the subsidized food program. The government, the commission said in a report, is depriving some citizens of the food boxes because they don’t possess the card.
> 
> “The government knows exactly who is most vulnerable to pressure,” she said.



The Venezuelan dystopian nightmare continues.....and is getting worse. Scary that China style surveillance has made it's way to other countries.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/venezuela-zte/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Venezuelan dystopian nightmare continues.....and is getting worse. Scary that China style surveillance has made it's way to other countries.


Don't try to pretend like this sort of thing isn't happening in our countries as well.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Don't try to pretend like this sort of thing isn't happening in our countries as well.


1) I didn't pretend it didn't.

2) Not to the extent we have seen in China and now Venezuela

3) This makes the situation any better how?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DOPA said:


> 1) I didn't pretend it didn't.


Suspicious by omission.



> 2) Not to the extent we have seen in China and now Venezuela


You underestimate just how much surveillance of our citizens is being carried out by our governments.



> 3) This makes the situation any better how?


Me pointing it out makes the situation better because it doesn't let our governments propagandize our citizens into believing they aren't doing the very same shit. The entire point of this article was to scare people into believing China and Venezuela are the evil countries spying on and tracking their citizens and distract from the fact that our countries are doing it too. You posting it uncritically and parroting their message is exactly what they want. Which, knowing you as I do, seems like the opposite of your anti- Big Government stances.

Just helping out a friend here.

You're welcome.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://qz.com/1474097/taiwan-votes-against-same-sex-marriage-in-referendum/

When liberals lose, democracy and referendums are stupid. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> https://qz.com/1474097/taiwan-votes-against-same-sex-marriage-in-referendum/
> 
> When liberals lose, democracy and referendums are stupid. :lol


They're always stupid because the voterbase is genuinely ill informed on the subject and the campaigners fill the referendum with utter dross and lies. (See Brexit) This is why we have elected officials.

You only have to see the desperation from Conservatives to not have a second referendum and labelling a second one as undemocratic or against the first vote to see that hypocrisy abounds. Mind you I'm not keen on a second referendum because I think referendums are stupid.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> https://qz.com/1474097/taiwan-votes-against-same-sex-marriage-in-referendum/
> 
> When liberals lose, democracy and referendums are stupid. :lol


What's stupid here is having referendums for civil rights, as was the case in this vote. Of course there should be a constitution that guarantees rights to citizens. There's a difference between allowing a majority opinion to vote on taking the rights away from a minority group they don't like and a vote on what economic and tax policy should be. It's the same difference between mob rule and a democratically run society.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Christine Ford has stated her crowdfunding campaign reached over 650k donations. I thought it reached over a million, but either way, pretty good chunk of change, especially seeing as she had nothing to gain at all from her testimony, which was on television and where she mentioned her gofundme page.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> They're always stupid because the voterbase is genuinely ill informed on the subject and the campaigners fill the referendum with utter dross and lies. (See Brexit) This is why we have elected officials.
> 
> You only have to see the desperation from Conservatives to not have a second referendum and labelling a second one as undemocratic or against the first vote to see that hypocrisy abounds. Mind you I'm not keen on a second referendum because I think referendums are stupid.


How elitist of you. :troll

I agree with you basing a decision completely on a referendum is stupid. But it has its merits in helping the elected officials feel the pulse of the people. Isn't that what many leftists and liberals 'claim' why their positions is the right one because it is the popular one in polls?

Brexit was stupid because they made a huge decision based on a hugely divided electorate. It should be able to cross a say 60% threshold not 50.1% for action to be taken. But in this example in Taiwan, both pro and anti gay marriages had their referendums and one side clearly had overwhelming support over the other. And the author simply brushed that off as if it was nothing.



Tater said:


> What's stupid here is having referendums for civil rights, as was the case in this vote. Of course there should be a constitution that guarantees rights to citizens. There's a difference between allowing a majority opinion to vote on taking the rights away from a minority group they don't like and a vote on what economic and tax policy should be. It's the same difference between mob rule and a democratically run society.


Government pushed for a change that is unpopular with the majority to pander to a certain minority that gives little to no substantial benefits to anyone at the risks of social unrest. Are you saying referendums by the population to signal to the government to tweak said changes is stupid too? Societal changes are not forced through top-down with legal wording changes. It is ironic at an age where marriage rates are falling, both sides of this issue view it as so important to their religious or civil rights. Almost like the issue is simply used by both sides to avoid talking about more complex issues.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Government pushed for a change that is unpopular with the majority to pander to a certain minority that gives little to no substantial benefits to anyone at the risks of social unrest. Are you saying referendums by the population to signal to the government to tweak said changes is stupid too? Societal changes are not forced through top-down with legal wording changes.


Are you asking me if I think the government should protect the rights of minorities, even if it risks social unrest from a majority of bigots? Because that's kind of a retarded question.



> It is ironic at an age where marriage rates are falling, both sides of this issue view it as so important to their religious or civil rights. Almost like the issue is simply used by both sides to avoid talking about more complex issues.


Seems like to me that you're the one using social issues as a reason that the people shouldn't have a vote on the more complex issues, such as economic or tax policy. :shrug


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Are you asking me if I think the government should protect the rights of minorities, even if it risks social unrest from a majority of bigots? Because that's kind of a retarded question.


Yes I am. It isn't retarded because whether the government is strong enough to handle any fallout from it is an important factor.





> Seems like to me that you're the one using social issues as a reason that the people shouldn't have a vote on the more complex issues, such as economic or tax policy. :shrug


Explain? Everyone were allowed a vote on this issue in Taiwan. Are you saying politicians should not listen to voters?

The author is arguing the votes against gay marriage aren't a majority but barely mentioned that the pro gay marriage side's referendums were also rejected by voters.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Yes I am. It isn't retarded because whether the government is strong enough to handle any fallout from it is an important factor.


I feel like this is something I should not have to explain. Whether or not a government is strong enough has no bearing on whether or not protecting the rights of their citizens is the right thing to do. Whether or not they can and what they should do if they can not is a different argument altogether.



> Explain? Everyone were allowed a vote on this issue in Taiwan. Are you saying politicians should not listen to voters?
> 
> The author is arguing the votes against gay marriage aren't a majority but barely mentioned that the pro gay marriage side's referendums were also rejected by voters.


Do I really need to explain the difference civil rights and tax policy? Really? unk2


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I feel like this is something I should not have to explain. Whether or not a government is strong enough has no bearing on whether or not protecting the rights of their citizens is the right thing to do. Whether or not they can and what they should do if they can not is a different argument altogether.


So the government should be virtue signalling like religious groups?





> Do I really need to explain the difference civil rights and tax policy? Really? unk2


Was your point that civil rights should never be put into a referendums? If so please explain why.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> So the government should be virtue signalling like religious groups?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was your point that civil rights should never be put into a referendums? If so please explain why.


No offense but this is just one of those things you should be able to figure out on your own. Good luck with that.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Christine Ford has stated her crowdfunding campaign reached over 650k donations. I thought it reached over a million, but either way, pretty good chunk of change, especially seeing as she had nothing to gain at all from her testimony, which was on television and where she mentioned her gofundme page.


Amateur numbers. She'd have gotten more if she shot a black boy.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Maybe she and David Icke should have coffee sometime


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



samizayn said:


> Amateur numbers. She'd have gotten more if she shot a black boy.


Looks like a nerve was struck :lol


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Christine Ford has stated her crowdfunding campaign reached over 650k donations. I thought it reached over a million, but either way, pretty good chunk of change, especially seeing as she had nothing to gain at all from her testimony, which was on television and where she mentioned her gofundme page.


650k?

That's a lot of vacations with her 'beach friends'!


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> 650k?
> 
> That's a lot of vacations with her 'beach friends'!


Apparently, thats just one gofundme while others reached over 200k from what I can remember. I remember hearing she reached over 1 million just after the hearings ended, but she confirmed she received 650k. It is certainly not a bad haul for sure


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Racial bias can put people of color at a disadvantage when interviewing for a job, buying a house, or interacting with the police. New research suggests that bias may also shape daily interactions between racial minorities and white people, even those whites who tend to be less biased.
> 
> According to new research by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale SOM, white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges. The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
> 
> While many previous studies have examined how people who hold racial bias behave in multi-racial settings, few have studied how whites who are more well-intentioned interact with people of other races. “There’s less work that explores how well-intentioned whites try to get along with racial minorities,” Dupree says. “We wanted to know their strategies for increasing connections between members of different social groups—and how effective these strategies are.”
> Read the study: “Self-Presentation in Interracial Settings: The Competence Downshift by White Liberals”
> 
> Dupree and her co-author, Susan Fiske of Princeton University, began by analyzing the words used in campaign speeches delivered by Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to different audiences over the years. They scanned 74 speeches delivered by white candidates over a 25-year period. Approximately half were addressed to mostly-minority audiences—at a Hispanic small business roundtable discussion or a black church, for example. They then paired each speech delivered to a mostly-minority audience with a comparable speech delivered at a mostly-white audience—at a mostly-white church or university, for example. The researchers analyzed the text of these speeches for two measures: words related to competence (that is, words about ability or status, such as “assertive” or “competitive”) and words related to warmth (that is, words about friendliness, such as “supportive” and “compassionate”).
> 
> Warmth, related to intentions towards others, and competence, related to the ability to carry out those intentions, are two fundamental dimensions of how we see others and portray ourselves in social interactions. Stereotypical portrayals of black Americans generally show them as being less competent than their white counterparts, but not necessarily less friendly or warm, Dupree explains.
> 
> The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences. The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes. There was no difference in Democrats’ or Republicans’ usage of words related to warmth. “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”
> 
> With this preliminary evidence in hand, the researchers set out to further test their ideas.
> “My hope is that this work will help include well-intentioned people who see themselves as allies but who may be unwittingly contributing to group divides.”
> 
> They designed a series of experiments in which white participants were asked to respond to a hypothetical or presumed-real interaction partner. For half of these participants, their partner was given a stereotypically white name (such as “Emily”); for the other half, their partner was given a stereotypically black name (such as “Lakisha”). Participants were asked to select from a list of words for an email to their partner. For some studies, this email was for a work-related task; for others, this email was simply to introduce themselves. Each word had been previously scored on how warm or competent it appears. The word “sad,” for example, scored low for both warmth and competence. “Melancholy,” on the other hand, scored high for competence and low on warmth.
> 
> Participant also completed a variety of measures that assessed how liberal they were.
> 
> The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
> How fair is American society?How Fair Is American Society?
> 
> Americans tend to be overly optimistic about economic equality between white and black citizens, according to a new study by Yale researchers. SOM’s Michael Kraus discusses why people systematically misperceive the reality of the wealth and income gap and what can be done to make the American dream more than a myth. Read more >>
> 
> Dupree and Fiske suspect that the behavior stems from a liberal person’s desire to connect with other races. One possible reason for the “competence downshift,” as the authors describe it, is that, regardless of race, people tend to downplay their competence when they want to appear likeable and friendly. But it’s also possible that “this is happening because people are using common stereotypes in an effort to get along,” Dupree says.
> 
> Initial data from follow-up studies suggest that describing a black person as highly intelligent, thus reversing the stereotype, or as already highly motivated to get along with whites, thus removing the need to prove goodwill, can reduce the likelihood that a white person will downplay their competence in their interactions with the black person.
> 
> Now, Dupree is working to understand how these behaviors play out in real-world organizations: for example, whether medical professionals engage in this behavior when interacting with minority patients and how corporate executives present themselves to minority peers. She is also testing the efficacy of this possibly strategic behavior: for example, do black receivers of white liberals’ competence downshift see this behavior as demeaning or endearing?
> 
> “There’s a lot of research focused on biased individuals and how holding bias, especially implicit bias, can influence social interactions,” Dupree says. “But that leaves a lot of people out. My hope is that this work will help include well-intentioned people who see themselves as allies but who may be unwittingly contributing to group divides. There is a broader need to include them in the conversation.”


https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liberals-present-themselves-as-less-competent-in-interactions-with-african-americans


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

interesting article.

I think everyone treats people differently based on how they look, that includes skin color,how they dress, and so on.

I I see a guy wearing a bullet club T-shirt, I am going to talk to him differently than if the same guy (or a different person) was wearing a SHIELD t-shirt.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

People are born with different decks. You can play the game with almost any deck past a certain point.

There are of course terrible exceptions but they rarely factor into collective solutions.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

That's not a surprising study at all. Conservatives talk to everyone the same. Liberals don't. Seems pretty obvious.


----------



## virus21

And another one


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

@DOPA


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068254578561306624


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> interesting article.
> 
> I think everyone treats people differently based on how they look, that includes skin color,how they dress, and so on.
> 
> I I see a guy wearing a bullet club T-shirt, I am going to talk to him differently than if the same guy (or a different person) was wearing a SHIELD t-shirt.


I love it when people try and criticize you for stereotyping, as if we all don't stereotype every second of every day.

I am a white dude. You wanna know who I keep an eye out for? Creepy looking white dudes with dufflebags. When I'm in a public setting and I see a creepy looking white dude with a backpack or a dufflebag, especially if he's wearing old ass fatigues or some shit, I can't help it... my spidey senses go off. That is me judging someone by the way they look. That is me stereotyping.

It is a perfectly human thing to do.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Undertaker23RKO said:


> That's not a surprising study at all. Conservatives talk to everyone the same. Liberals don't. Seems pretty obvious.


To be fair though, conservatives don't generally talk to people unlike them. They pull out their guns and it's bang with out a word, it's their right. Seems pretty obvious.


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I wish it was socially acceptable to cuss people out if they try to force you into talking politics with them


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> To be fair though, conservatives don't generally talk to people unlike them. They pull out their guns and it's bang with out a word, it's their right. Seems pretty obvious.


I don't agree with that at all. I'm from the suburbs, ended up going to more of a rural college, played on a football team filled with a bunch of southern hicks and everyone treated everybody equally. I've never in my life seen anything resembling one part of this post though I'm only one person.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I love it when people try and criticize you for stereotyping, as if we all don't stereotype every second of every day.
> 
> I am a white dude. You wanna know who I keep an eye out for? Creepy looking white dudes with dufflebags. When I'm in a public setting and I see a creepy looking white dude with a backpack or a dufflebag, especially if he's wearing old ass fatigues or some shit, I can't help it... my spidey senses go off. That is me judging someone by the way they look. That is me stereotyping.
> 
> It is a perfectly human thing to do.


Well, yeah, it sounds mean to say, but this is how we survive.

I am a black dude, and i would feel super uncomfortable in the backwoods of Alabama where they don't know the war is over. Just as uncomfortable if I had to walk by the street corner with 7 dudes on it playing dice.

This is what makes us survive, its the reason why you don't go into the lion cage at the zoo to pet the pretty kitty, because you know the danger my not be worth it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Undertaker23RKO said:


> yeahbaby! said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair though, conservatives don't generally talk to people unlike them. They pull out their guns and it's bang with out a word, it's their right. Seems pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with that at all. I'm from the suburbs, ended up going to more of a rural college, played on a football team filled with a bunch of southern hicks and everyone treated everybody equally. I've never in my life seen anything resembling one part of this post though I'm only one person.
Click to expand...

I've grown up with liberals and we all talk to everyone the same. So the point goes both way.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I've grown up with liberals and we all talk to everyone the same. So the point goes both way.


I have seen the opposite but that's neither here nor there. However, I would be shocked if you had seen anything close to what the other poster suggested.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Adam Cool said:


> I wish it was socially acceptable to cuss people out if they try to force you into talking politics with them


Fuck socially acceptable. Cuss them out to your heart's content. 

ositivity


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





Just insanity


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068213670834917376
lmao Canada electing people based on looks and pedigree


----------



## Empress

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068731533157117952

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068730634120646656


> George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president of the United States, has died at age 94.
> 
> His death was announced by his family Friday night on Twitter. The president's health had been in decline in recent months.
> 
> Bush was admitted to Houston Methodist Hospital with a blood infection on April 22 -- two days after the funeral for his wife of 73 years, former first lady Barbara Bush.
> 
> He is survived by his five children, including former President George W. Bush and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
> 
> Bush was with there his wife when she died at the age of 92 on April 17.
> 
> "He of course is broken-hearted to lose his beloved Barbara, his wife of 73 years. He held her hand all day and was at her side when [she] left this good earth," a statement from his office said after her death. "But it will not surprise all of you who know and love him, that he also is being stoic and strong, and is being lifted up by his large and supportive family."
> 
> Bush was a key part of his family’s political dynasty. His father was a senator; and his son George W. Bush was president from 2001 to 2009.
> 
> He served two terms as President Ronald Reagan's second in command and became the first incumbent vice president to be elected president since Martin Van Buren in 1836.
> 
> But Bush's tenure in the White House was limited to four years. He was defeated for re-election by Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992. A weakened economy, a limited domestic agenda and a broken promise against raising taxes contributed to Bush's defeat.
> 
> PHOTOS: George H.W. Bush through the years
> 
> Bush was a one-time oil executive who spent years in government service, including terms as CIA director, ambassador to the United Nations and liaison to the People's Republic of China. He was also elected to the House of Representatives as a congressman from Texas. Following his time in the White House, he and his wife moved to Houston, where they led a relatively quiet life.


Rest of the article


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

bush & mccain in one year! i knew today was going to be LIT. :mark::mark::mark:


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It was just the other day when I saw an article about HW pardoning people involved in the Iran-Contra scandal to protect his own by ass by preventing them from ever having to testify against him. He should have spent his dying days locked up in The Hague for being a war criminal but of course, his entire history will be whitewashed and he'll be praised by both sides of the aisle as a hero because he was president.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068998173593559040


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/30/north-carolina-house-race-mark-harris-1036941

Amateurs. They should learn from California to be better at elections fraud. /sarcasm


----------



## Draykorinee

How does America fuck up the act of voting so often? We rarely if ever hear of voter fraud here.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I mean...the fact that this was highlighted means they didn't fuck it up. They are doing checks to see if the voting was tampered with.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> It was just the other day when I saw an article about HW pardoning people involved in the Iran-Contra scandal to protect his own by ass by preventing them from ever having to testify against him. He should have spent his dying days locked up in The Hague for being a war criminal but of course, his entire history will be whitewashed and he'll be praised by both sides of the aisle as a hero because he was president.


It's called being respectful and putting politics aside. We are allowed to be decent human beings after all and pay respect to people that we don't necessarily agree with. I didn't agree with everything Bush 41 did but he was still a decent person. I don't agree with everything Obama stands for but in the end he still comes across as a good person so I do respect him. 

It's OK to do that once in a while...life's too short to be bitter about everything.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

SJW culture is getting out of control. Now they have diversity cheetos for snowflakes. fpalm


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/30/north-carolina-house-race-mark-harris-1036941
> 
> *Amateurs. They should learn from California to be better at elections fraud. /sarcasm*


I'm sure if you investigated you'd find some kind of fraud all over the place in just about every state. It's why when I suggest that all States and voting districts be looked at, the team mascots never want that, only specific investigations. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/1...r-revealed-to-have-co-authored-assange-smear/



> *The Guardian’s Reputation In Tatters After Forger Revealed To Have Co-Authored Assange Smear*
> 
> Regular followers of WikiLeaks-related news are at this point familiar with the multiple serious infractions of journalistic ethics by Luke Harding and the Guardian, especially (though not exclusively) when it comes to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. However, another individual at the heart of this matter is far less familiar to the public. That man is Fernando Villavicencio, a prominent Ecuadorian political activist and journalist, director of the USAID-funded NGO Fundamedios and editor of online publication FocusEcuador.
> 
> Most readers are also aware of the Guardian’s recent publication of claims that Julian Assange met with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on three occasions. This has now been definitively debunked by Felix Narvaez, the former Consul at Ecuador’s London embassy between 2010 and 2018, who says Paul Manafort has never visited the embassy during the time he was in charge there. But this was hardly the first time the outlet published a dishonest smear authored by Luke Harding against Assange. The paper is also no stranger to publishing stories based on fabricated documents.
> 
> In May, Disobedient Media reported on the Guardian’s hatchet-job relating to ‘Operation Hotel,’ or rather, the normal security operations of the embassy under former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. That hit-piece, co-authored by Harding and Dan Collyns, asserted among other things that (according to an anonymous source) Assange hacked the embassy’s security system. The allegation was promptly refuted by Correa as “absurd” in an interview with The Intercept, and also by WikiLeaks as an “anonymous libel” with which the Guardian had “gone too far this time. We’re suing.”
> 
> A shared element of The Guardian’s ‘Operation Hotel’ fabrications and the latest libel attempting to link Julian Assange to Paul Manafort is none other than Fernando Villavicencio of FocusEcuador. In 2014 Villavicencio was caught passing a forged document to the Guardian, which published it without verifying it. When the forgery was revealed, the Guardian hurriedly took the document down but then tried to cover up that it had been tampered with by Villavicencio when it re-posted it a few days later.
> 
> How is Villavicencio tied to The Guardian’s latest smear of Assange? Intimately, it turns out.
> 
> Who is Fernando Villavicencio?
> 
> Earlier this year, an independent journalist writing under the pseudonym Jimmyslama penned a comprehensive report detailing Villavicencio’s relationships with pro-US actors within Ecuador and the US. She sums up her findings, which are worth reading in full:
> 
> “…The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S. government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa.”
> 
> As most readers recall, it was Correa who granted Assange asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Villavicencio was so vehemently opposed to Rafael Correa’s socialist government that during the failed 2010 coup against Correa he falsely accused the President of “crimes against humanity” by ordering police to fire on the crowds (it was actually Correa who was being shot at). Correa sued him for libel, and won, but pardoned Villavicencio for the damages awarded by the court.
> 
> Assange legal analyst Hanna Jonasson recently made the link between the Ecuadorian forger Villavicencio and Luke Harding’s Guardian stories based on dubious documents explicit. She Tweeted: 2014 Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange ‘secret meeting’ story, Harding and Collyns.”
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068912607258705921
> Jonasson included a link to a 2014 official Ecuadorian government statement which reads in part: “There is also evidence that the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and opponent of Ecuador’s current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and replaced with a version with this evidence removed).” The statement also notes that Villavicencio had fled the country after his conviction for libeling Correa during the 2010 coup and was at that time living as a fugitive in the United States.
> 
> It is incredibly significant, as Jonasson argues, that the authors of the Guardian’s latest libelous article were photographed with Villavicencio in Ecuador shortly before publication of the Guardian’s claim that Assange had conducted meetings with Manafort.
> 
> Jonasson’s Twitter thread also states: “This video from the news wire Andes alleges that Villavicencio’s name appeared in the metadata of the document originally uploaded alongside The Guardian’s story.” The 2014 Guardian piece, which aimed a falsified shot at then-President Rafael Correa, would not be the last time Villavicencio’s name would appear on a controversial Guardian story before being scrubbed from existence.
> 
> Just days after the backlash against the Guardian reached fever-pitch, Villavicencio had the gall to publish another image of himself with Harding and Collyns, gloating : “One of my greatest journalistic experiences was working for months on Assange’s research with colleagues from the British newspaper the Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @ somos_lafuente” [Translated from Spanish]
> 
> The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims, or ‘anonymously sourced’ claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador.
> 
> Astoundingly, and counter to Villavicencio’s uncharacteristic coyness, a recent video posted by WikiLeaks via Twitter does show that Villavicencio was originally listed as a co-author of the Guardian’s Manafort-Assange allegations, before his name was edited out of the online article. The original version can be viewed, however, thanks to archive services.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069670645586374658
> The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence showing he co-authored the piece doesn’t just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and fabricated stories.
> 
> All of this provoke the question: did Villavicencio provide more bogus documents to Harding and Collyns – Harding said he’d seen a document, though he didn’t publish one (or even quote from it) so readers might judge its veracity for themselves – or perhaps these three invented the accusations out of whole-cloth?
> 
> Either way, to quote WikiLeaks, the Guardian has “gone too far this time” and its already-tattered reputation is in total shambles.
> 
> Successful Propaganda, Failed Journalism
> 
> Craig Murray calls Harding an “MI6 tool“, but to this writer, Harding seems worse than an MI6 stooge: He’s a wannabe-spook, hanging from the coat-tails of anonymous intelligence officers and publishing their drivel as fact without so much as a skeptical blink. His lack of self-awareness and conflation of anecdote with evidence sets him apart as either one of the most blatant, fumbling propagandists of our era, or the most hapless hack journalist to stain the pages of printed news.
> 
> To provide important context on Harding’s previous journalistic irresponsibility, we again recall that he co-authored the infamous book containing the encryption password of the entire Cablegate archive, leading to a leak of the unredacted State Department Cables across the internet. Although the guilty Guardian journalists tried to blame Assange for the debacle, it was they themselves who ended up on the receiving end of some well-deserved scorn.
> 
> In addition to continuing the Guardian’s and Villavicencio’s vendetta against Assange and WikiLeaks, it is clearly in Harding’s financial interests to conflate the pending prosecution of Assange with Russiagate. As this writer previously noted, Harding penned a book on the subject, titled: “Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.” Tying Assange to Russiagate is good for business, as it stokes public interest in the self-evidently faulty narrative his book supports.
> 
> Even more concerning is the claim amongst publishing circles, fueled by recent events, that Harding may be writing another book on Assange, with publication presumably timed for his pending arrest and extradition and designed to cash in on the trial. If that is in fact the case, the specter arises that Harding is working to push for Assange’s arrest, not just on behalf of US, UK or Ecuadorian intelligence interests, but also to increase his own book sales.
> 
> That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for “months” on the “Assange story,” the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version of the Guardian’s article, and the recent denial by Felix Narvaez, raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad sources who duped them, as claimed by some.
> 
> It indicates that the fake story was constructed deliberately on behalf of the very same intelligence establishment that the Guardian is nowadays only too happy to take the knee for.
> 
> In summary, one of the most visible establishment media outlets published a fake story on its front page, in an attempt to manufacture a crucial cross-over between the pending prosecution of Assange and the Russiagate saga. This represents the latest example in an onslaught of fake news directed at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ever since they published the largest CIA leak in history in the form of Vault 7, an onslaught which appears to be building in both intensity and absurdity as time goes on.
> 
> The Guardian has destroyed its reputation, and in the process, revealed the desperation of the establishment when it comes to Assange.


https://fair.org/home/misreporting-manafort-a-case-study-in-journalistic-malpractice/



> In what has been described as potentially the biggest story of the year, the Guardian’s Luke Harding (11/27/18) reported last week that Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, held a series of secret talks with WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange. These meetings were said to have occurred inside the Ecuadorian embassy between 2013 and 2016. The report also mentions that unspecified “Russians” were also among Assange’s visitors. The scoop, according to the newspaper, could “shed new light” on the role of WikiLeaks’ release of Democratic Party emails in the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> The story was picked up across the US, including by USA Today (11/27/18), the Washington Post (11/27/18), Bloomberg (11/27/18), Yahoo! News (27/11/18), The Hill (11/27/18) and Rolling Stone (11/27/18). One CNN analyst (11/27/18) analyst excitedly commented that the news was “hugely significant” and “could be one of the two missing links to show real interference and knowledge of Russian involvement” in the election.
> 
> However, there were serious problems with the report. Firstly, the entire story was based upon anonymous intelligence sources, sources that could not tell the newspaper exactly when the meetings took place.
> 
> Furthermore, the Ecuadorian embassy is one of the most surveilled buildings in the most surveilled city in the world, and was under 24-hour police guard and monitoring, costing the UK government over £11 million between 2012 and 2015. The embassy also had very tight internal security, with all visitors thoroughly vetted, required to sign in and leave all their electronic devices with security. Is it really possible any figure, let alone Donald Trump’s campaign manager, could walk in for a series of secret meetings without leaving record with Ecuador, or being seen by the media or police?
> 
> For their part, both Manafort and WikiLeaks have strenuously denied the accusation, with the latter announcing, “This is going to be one of the most infamous news disasters since Stern published the Hitler Diaries.” It also declared it was planning to sue the Guardian, setting up a Go Fund Me appeal to help with legal costs.
> 
> The Guardian immediately started to walk back its claims, editing the article a number of times, changing its headline from “Manafort Held Secret Talks With Assange in Ecuadorian Embassy” to “Manafort Held Secret Talks With Assange in Ecuadorian Embassy, Sources Say.” It inserted qualifiers, denials and words like “hoax” into the text, quietly changing much of the tense of the report to the conditional. Thus, the passage “It is unclear why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last meeting is likely to come under scrutiny” was changed to (emphasis added) “It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny.” Thus a piece that started as a factual news report was transformed into an allegation—after it went viral and was picked up across international media.
> 
> The story that threatened to become the political news event of the winter was quickly dropped by the media, with search interest for terms such as “Manafort” and “Assange” dropping by around 90 percent in one day.
> 
> ‘The Most Logical Explanation’
> Politico: Did Someone Plant a Story Tying Paul Manafort to Julian Assange?
> Politico (11/28/18) puts forward a corporate media version of the “false flag” theory.
> 
> As the story crumbled, Politico (11/28/18) put forward a bizarre explanation for the event, written by an anonymous ex-CIA officer, who argued that Russian intelligence had likely planted the story as a means to discredit Harding and the Guardian, noting that, if it is all false, “the most logical explanation is that it is an attempt to make Harding look bad.” Thus, Trump, WikiLeaks and Russia’s vast “disinformation network” would be able to deride the press as purveyors of “fake news.” It appears not to have occurred to the CIA alum that the story could have been planted to discredit WikiLeaks, Russia or Manafort (and by extension, Trump).
> 
> The anonymous spy ended by stating he “finds it hard to believe Harding would not go to great lengths to confirm his story.” Russia certainly would have an interest in discrediting the Guardian and Harding, who has a long history of criticizing Putinism and was refused re-entry to the country in 2011. But the newspaper appears not to have done even basic diligence over what must have been multiple new, unknown sources by checking with the embassy or with the police, if this was indeed the case. It also ignores that one source appears to have been Ecuadorian intelligence itself, not Russian.
> 
> State officials have a long history of using a pliant media to manipulate public discourse around international struggles by introducing false information. A central part of the drive to the invasion of Iraq was the false claim that Saddam Hussein was just 45 minutes from attacking the US and UK with WMDs. Officials urged that we could not wait for the mushroom cloud and had to act now. In 2016 US officials planted a false story in the Washington Post (12/31/16) that Russia had hacked into the US electric grid. That these claims were demonstrably incorrect did not delegitimize or scupper the interests of the state, or dampen the dominant narrative. There is rarely, if ever, any price to pay for official sources lying to journalists. This was why “the most logical explanation” was certainly not that Iraqi or Russian intelligence had fed the media fake information as to discredit Western reporting. The Manafort story went viral, while the retraction of some of its claims received, in comparison, scant attention.
> 
> Harding also has an ongoing and bitter feud with Assange. (He wrote a highly critical biography of the WikiLeaks editor that was subsequently turned into the movie, The Fifth Estate, which Assange described as a “massive propaganda attack” on him.)
> 
> He also has a history of publishing deeply inflammatory claims without being able to back them up. His book, Collusion, on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election was a New York Times No. 1 bestseller, and yet he could not give any evidence of collusion when asked in a now-infamous interview with Aaron Maté of The Real News, unable to defend even the title of his book, let alone his thesis. After being pressed harder by Maté, he simply disconnected the interview prematurely.
> 
> Therefore, Occam’s razor suggests the most logical explanation is likely that the Guardian published anonymous official sources without checking their claims’ validity.
> 
> ‘Sources Say’
> It is standard journalistic practice to name and check sources. Without a name to match to a quote, its credibility (and therefore that of the story) immediately drops, as there are no repercussions for that individual if they are untruthful. Sources (or journalists themselves) could simply make up anything they wanted with no consequences. Therefore, using anonymous sources is strongly discouraged, except in rare circumstances, generally when sources would face retaliation for revealing information of vital public interest. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics insists journalists “identify sources whenever feasible” and that journalists must “always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity.”
> 
> Robert Fisk (cc photo: Mohamed Nanabhay)
> Robert Fisk (cc photo: Mohamed Nanabhay/Wikimedia)
> 
> Unfortunately, the use of anonymous officials in reporting is increasing, and is a worrying trend in modern journalism, as the veteran reporter Robert Fisk once explained:
> 
> I’m just looking at a copy of the Toronto Globe and Mail. It’s a story about Al Qaeda in Algeria. And what is the sourcing? “US intelligence officials said,” “a senior US intelligence official said,” “US officials said,” ‘the intelligence official said,” “Algerian officials say,” “national security sources considered,” “European security sources said”…. We might as well name our newspapers “Officials Say.” This is the cancer at the bottom of modern journalism, that we do not challenge power anymore. Why are Americans tolerating these garbage stories with no real sourcing except for very dodgy characters indeed, who won’t give their names?
> 
> In this way, anonymous state officials can influence and drive media narratives without even needed to have their name associated with a claim. However, we appear to be entering a new era where unnamed state officials not only influence, but actually write the news themselves, as demonstrated by the Politico article.
> 
> Furthermore, as FAIR (8/22/18, 9/25/18) has already cataloged, media giants such as Facebook are already working with governmental organizations like the Atlantic Council to control what we see online, under the guise of battling Russian-sponsored fake news. The Atlantic Council is a NATO offshoot whose board of directors includes neo-conservative hawks like Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger and James Baker; CIA directors like Robert Gates, Leon Panetta and Michael Hayden; as well as retired generals like Wesley Clark and David Petraeus.
> 
> Leave alone that much of the most sensational reporting and claims about Russian influence comes from the Atlantic Council’s reports in the first place, thus creating a perfect feedback loop justifying more active measures. Therefore, much of the coverage Russian state propaganda is itself state propaganda!
> 
> The Utility of Misreporting
> Why was a highly questionable report from a foreign media outlet based upon anonymous sources picked up far and wide, sometimes without even a basic follow-up, such as asking for comment from the Ecuadorian embassy, Assange or Manafort (again, standard journalistic practice)?
> 
> As I argued previously (FAIR.org, 7/27/18), there is great utility for the establishment in promoting the idea of foreign interference in American domestic issues. For one, it helps develop a conspiratorial mindset among the public, encouraging them to be less critical of the state when the United States is “under attack.” Liberals’ trust in the FBI has markedly increased since Trump’s election and the focus on Russia.
> 
> Kremlin-sponsored “fake news” also serves as a pretext for mainstream media monopolies to re-tighten their grip over the means of communication. Media giants such as Google, Facebook, Bing and YouTube have changed their algorithms, supposedly to fight fake news. However, the consequence has been to strangle alternative media that challenged the mainstream narrative. Since Google changed its algorithm, WikiLeaks’ search traffic dropped 30 per cent, AlterNet by 63 per cent, Democracy Now! 36 per cent and Common Dreams by 37 per cent.
> 
> Finally, for the political establishment, the Russian fake news story gives them a convenient excuse as to why Trump was able to win the Republican nomination and defeat Hillary Clinton and to why new movements, from the alt-right to Black Lives Matter and the Bernie Sanders phenomenon on the left, have occurred. They are not responses to the decay of the political and economic system, but examples of foreign interference.
> 
> Adam Johnson’s “North Korea Law of Journalism” states that journalistic standards “are inversely proportional to a country’s enemy status,” meaning that the more antagonistic the US is to a country, the more lackadaisical journalists can be with the truth while reporting on said state. FAIR has consistently cataloged misreporting of enemy states, such as Iran (9/9/15; 7/25/17) North Korea (5/9/17; 3/22/17) Venezuela ( 5/16/17; 3/2/07), Cuba or Syria (10/21/15), where their supposed threat to the world or their human rights violations are ramped up, while downplaying crimes of friendly states (2/1/09).
> 
> The same can equally be said of enemy political figures like Assange, Sanders or Jill Stein. When it serves a political function, stories about official enemies too good to be true are also too good not to publish.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Oh The Guardian is full of shit? 

I'm just ever so shocked by this development.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Reaper with the spicy Political gossip!

I think everyone knew the Guardian was biased bullshit peddlers, but great find!

I don't know about you boys and girls, wouldn't it be nice if the media wasn't a giant propaganda machine that was owned by rich elitists?


----------



## Draykorinee

The guardians a crock of shit. I never forget my cousin saying he feels grown up reading the Guardian, I did not hold back in telling him it's a piece of shit. It's the Mail of the left.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Reaper with the spicy Political gossip!
> 
> I think everyone knew the Guardian was biased bullshit peddlers, but great find!
> 
> I don't know about you boys and girls, wouldn't it be nice if the media wasn't a giant propaganda machine that was owned by rich elitists?


Yeah, wouldn't it be wonderful if the news media just reported what happened truthfully and allowed us to draw our own conclusions from the facts? 

Man that'd be nice.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Some people (including me) have been calling that Guardian article about Manafort and Assange bullshit right from the start. Greenwald has been on them the whole time. Man, you should have seen Resistance Twitter the day it came out. They were in full meltdown frenzy mode.

I know Jimmy didn't fall for it.






In other media related hilarity, check out this montage for a good laugh.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069968239399190528


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Some people (including me) have been calling that Guardian article about Manafort and Assange bullshit right from the start. Greenwald has been on them the whole time. Man, you should have seen Resistance Twitter the day it came out. They were in full meltdown frenzy mode.
> 
> I know Jimmy didn't fall for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other media related hilarity, check out this montage for a good laugh.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069968239399190528


And people have the gall to make fun of Wrestling for being fake.


----------



## virus21

TripleG said:


> And people have the gall to make fun of Wrestling for being fake.


Even funnier is that these fools falling on their own swords is more entertaining than WWE has been in years.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Wisconsin Repbulicnas are pulling a fast one. they're transferring power from the governor to the legislature before the Deomcrat governoe elect takes office in January.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/12/03/5-senators-spotlight-opponents-try-stop-lame-duck-bill/2189439002/ 



> *Republicans advance plan to limit Democrats' power, drop proposal to move 2020 presidential primary*
> 
> MADISON - Republicans on the Legislature's budget committee charged ahead early Tuesday with a lame-duck plan to limit early voting and scale back the powers of the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general.
> 
> But they dropped — at least for now — their plan to move the 2020 presidential primary, which was designed to help a conservative justice keep his seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The fate of a bill to protect insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions remained unclear.
> 
> The sweeping batch of legislation is to be taken up Tuesday by the Republican-controlled Senate and Assembly. That would get the plan to Republican Gov. Scott Walker before he leaves office Jan. 7 after narrowly losing last month's election to Democrat Tony Evers.
> 
> The last of the measures passed on party-line 12-4 votes just after midnight after 10 hours of testimony and debate.
> 
> Republicans said the legislation would make sure lawmakers have an equal say in how state government runs when Evers is sworn in.
> 
> "It puts us on an equal playing field as a Legislature," said Rep. John Nygren, a Marinette Republican and the co-chairman of the Joint Finance Committee. "This is a balancing of power in the state of Wisconsin."
> 
> Democrats decried the effort to give more power to Republican lawmakers after their party lost every statewide election last month.
> 
> "You rig the system when you win and you rig the system when you lose," said Rep. Chris Taylor, a Madison Democrat. "How is it that you have more power when you lose?"
> 
> At a stop in Wausau, Evers said he would consider litigation should any of the measures become law.
> 
> "We will actively be looking at either to litigate or do whatever else in our power to make sure the people of Wisconsin are represented at the table," Evers told reporters.
> 
> In written testimony, he asked Republican lawmakers to abandon their lame-duck session instead of trying to “override and ignore what the people of Wisconsin asked for this November.”
> 
> "This is rancor and politics as usual,” he wrote of their plans.
> 
> But Walker downplayed the significance of the legislation's proposed changes and signaled he would sign it if it gets to his desk.
> 
> "Much of what we did over the last eight years is work with the Legislature, not at odds with the Legislature," he told reporters after a menorah lighting ceremony at the governor's mansion. "For all the talk about reining in power, it really doesn't."
> 
> Walker said the measures seek to keep in place the current friendly dynamic between the Republican governor and GOP-controlled Legislature.
> 
> With an 18-15 majority, Senate Republicans cannot afford to lose more than one vote. Opponents hoped to get two or more of them to abandon all or parts of the plans and directed their lobbying energy on GOP Sens. Rob Cowles of Green Bay, Dan Feyen of Fond du Lac, Luther Olsen of Ripon, Jerry Petrowski of Marathon and Patrick Testin of Stevens Point.
> 
> Republicans have a commanding 64-35 majority in the Assembly, making passage there much easier than in the Senate.
> 
> Among the numerous provisions included in the legislation are ones that would limit early voting to two weeks; give Republicans more control of the state agency overseeing job creation; curtail the governor's ability to write state rules and adjust public benefits programs; and allow lawmakers to replace the attorney general with private attorneys at taxpayer expense.
> 
> The early voting limit is similar to one struck down by a federal judge in 2016. Republicans said they believed the new early voting restrictions would survive a court challenge because weekend and evening voting would be allowed during the two weeks of early voting.
> 
> Those who sued over the earlier limit promised to revive their court fight if the new restrictions pass. Communities allowed as much as six weeks of early voting in the most recent election.
> 
> The plan to move the presidential primary was aimed at making sure conservative state Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly is not up for election on the same day as the presidential primary in April 2020, when Republicans fear Democratic turnout will be high.
> 
> Moving the primary to March would cost taxpayers nearly $7 million and municipal clerks warned it would be hard to conduct so many elections so close together.
> 
> The committee didn't approve the legislation and leaders said they doubted it would come up on the floor of the Senate or Assembly.
> 
> Opponents spent the weekend mobilizing after GOP leaders released their package of bills late Friday. On Monday, they testified before the committee, flooded lawmakers with calls and emails and rallied on the Capitol steps.
> 
> Some moments echoed the raucous protests of 2011 over collective bargaining, with opponents chanting and banging on the hearing room doors. Most of those testifying sharply but politely disparaged the legislation, but some yelled from the audience or refused to end their testimony after two minutes and were escorted out of the hearing by police.
> 
> GOP lawmakers said they want to re-balance power before Evers takes over for Walker.
> 
> "We want both branches (of government) to have an equal seat at the table," said Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, a Rochester Republican.
> 
> Vos said he started considering the legislation this summer, before he knew who would win the race for governor. Drafting files made public Monday showed the legislation was put together in the weeks after the Nov. 6 election.
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau downplayed the measures that are being considered.
> 
> "People are outraged. I'm not sure where that's coming from right now," he said. "I still characterize this as inside baseball."
> 
> Republicans noted Democrats tried to pass labor contracts for state employees during the lame-duck period in 2010 after control of all of state government shifted from Democrats to Republicans.
> 
> Democrats condemned the latest plan as an effort to reverse the election.
> 
> “This is clearly an attempt to undermine our democracy in Wisconsin," said Josh Kaul, the Democrat who beat Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel and would lose many of his powers in the legislation.
> 
> Schimel — whom Walker has said he will appoint as a Waukesha County judge before the two complete their terms — did not respond to questions about his views on the legislation.
> 
> Nygren, the budget committee co-chairman, called the changes to the attorney general's office appropriate.
> 
> "The (state) constitution gives broad power to this body to oversee state government," he said. "Do you know what powers are listed in the constitution for the AG? None. None. So the authority lies in this body to set the policies for state government, so we’re doing that."
> 
> Republican lawmakers are also considering passing legislation aimed at protecting insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions. The effort comes after Evers and Kaul focused heavily on the issue.
> 
> Fitzgerald said senators had not finalized a plan on the issue and did not say whether he could muster the votes to pass it.
> 
> Democrats are opposed to the plan because the state can't offer protections as extensive as those provided under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
> 
> They are also skeptical of the GOP plan because the lame-duck legislation would allow Republican lawmakers to keep alive a lawsuit over the Affordable Care Act that Evers and Kaul want to drop. Under the bill, Republicans could also gain control of litigation over redistricting and the voter ID law.
> 
> Also Tuesday, the Senate is to consider confirming some of Walker's appointees, including long-time Walker aide Ellen Nowak to the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities. Lon Roberts, the chairman of the commission, told Walker last week he was resigning at the end of December and Walker — without public notice — appointed Nowak to take his place.
> 
> Nowak is Walker's administration secretary and previously served on the three-member Public Service Commission.
> 
> *Plans mirror other states*
> 
> The lame-duck plan Republicans are advancing is similar to one signed in 2016 by North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory after he was defeated by a Democrat.
> 
> The legislation passed by the North Carolina Legislature weakened incoming Gov. Roy Cooper's authority over the state's election system and reduced the number of the governor's appointments. The matter ended up in court, and was found to be unconstitutional.
> 
> And in Michigan now, Republican lawmakers are attempting efforts similar to the one in Wisconsin before new officeholders are sworn in.
> 
> One bill would allow the Legislature to intervene in any legal proceeding involving the state — that’s normally the province of the governor and attorney general.
> 
> Another bill would move campaign finance law regulation from the secretary of state’s office to a six-person commission appointed by the governor. The outgoing governor, Rick Snyder, is a Republican.
> 
> Michigan’s action comes as Democrats — all of them women — are taking over the offices of governor, attorney general and secretary of state.
> 
> Wisconsin's lame-duck legislation would:
> 
> Limit early voting to two weeks. A similar limit was found unconstitutional in 2016 and Democrats have threatened to take legal action again.
> Give Republicans more control of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., including over its enterprise zone program that gives tax breaks to individual businesses. Republicans would appoint a majority of WEDC's board and the board, rather than the governor, would appoint WEDC's leader.
> Put lawmakers in charge of litigation, allowing them to keep alive a lawsuit to overturn the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare.
> Give lawmakers — instead of the attorney general — control over how court settlements are spent.
> Allow the Legislature to substitute the attorney general with taxpayer-funded private attorneys — picked by lawmakers — when state laws are challenged in court.
> Make it easier for lawmakers to hire private attorneys at taxpayer expense when they are accused of violating the open records law or other statutes.
> Eliminate the solicitor general's office, which oversees high-profile litigation.
> Modestly lower the state’s income tax rates next year to offset about $60 million in online sales taxes from out-of-state retailers that Wisconsin recently began collecting.
> Require Evers to get permission from lawmakers to ban guns in the state Capitol.
> Bar judges from giving deference to state agencies’ interpretations of laws when they are challenged in court. That could make it easier to win lawsuits challenging how environmental regulations and other laws are being enforced.
> Make it much more difficult, in numerous ways, for the Evers administration to put in place rules that implement current and future state laws. Lawmakers, meanwhile, would gain greater power to block any rules that Evers manages to put in place.
> Require state agencies to file quarterly reports on their spending.
> Require the Evers administration to report if the governor pardons anyone or his aides release anyone from prison early.
> Force Evers to get permission from the Legislature before asking the federal government to make any changes to programs that are run jointly by the state and federal governments. That would limit the governor's flexibility in how he runs public benefits programs. If the Legislature’s budget committee determined the administration was not implementing recent changes to those programs, it could reduce funding and staffing for state agencies.
> Require Evers to go along with a plan aimed at reducing premiums for insurance plans offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces for individuals.
> Increase the number of members on the Group Insurance Board, which oversees state health benefits, from 11 to 15. The proposal would allow leaders of the Legislature to appoint the additional members.
> Channel federal money into a smaller number of state road projects, so that other projects could avoid having to comply with federal environmental and wage laws.
> 
> How To Contact Top State Officials
> Gov. Scott Walker:
> (608) 266-1212, [email protected], walker.wi.gov/contact-us.
> 
> Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester):
> (608) 266-9171, [email protected].
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau):
> (608) 266-5660, [email protected].
> 
> Lee Bergquist of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Natalie Brophy of the USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin contributed to this report.
> 
> Want to support journalism like this? Subscribe to the Journal Sentinel today.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Wisconsin Repbulicnas are pulling a fast one. they're transferring power from the governor to the legislature before the Deomcrat governoe elect takes office in January.
> 
> https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/12/03/5-senators-spotlight-opponents-try-stop-lame-duck-bill/2189439002/


It should be illegal to do things like this during the lame-duck sessions. Just showing how corrupt the GOP is and the extent they will go to subvert democracy


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Wisconsin Repbulicnas are pulling a fast one. they're transferring power from the governor to the legislature before the Deomcrat governoe elect takes office in January.
> 
> https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/12/03/5-senators-spotlight-opponents-try-stop-lame-duck-bill/2189439002/


I've been following this story since yesterday on Twitter at #WIPowerGrab. They did something very similar in North Carolina 2 years ago when a Dem was elected governor. They're doing the same thing in Michigan right now as well. It's becoming an actual Republican strategy at this point, not just a one off. 

One of the more outrageous aspects to the story in Wisconsin is the fact that Dems won every statewide election but Republicans still have 2/3 of the Assembly seats, even though Dems got something like 54% of all the Assembly votes. How anyone can look at that number and claim partisan gerrymandering is not a major problem is beyond me. When one party wins every single election that everyone in the state gets to vote on but the losing party is able to use gerrymandering fuckery to defy the will of the people, then you cease to be anything resembling a democracy.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Wish we still had a political correctness thread.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/ivy-league-students-kick-snl-comedian-nimesh-patel-off-stage/



> *Columbia Students Kick SNL Comedian Nimesh Patel Off Stag*
> 
> Columbia University students invited Saturday Night Live comedian Nimesh Patel to perform on campus this weekend, then cut his mic and kicked him off stage after he allegedly made “rude” and “offensive” jokes.
> 
> The debacle happened Saturday night at cultureSHOCK, an event dedicated to celebrating Asian and Pacific Islander culture. Having attended it twice during my time at Columbia, I know that the catered show typically begins with a fashion show and culminates with a comedy skit.
> 
> Last year, cultureSHOCK ended with a standing ovation for Phil Kaye, a Japanese-American poet whose work is mainly personal, not political. But this year, cultureShock organizers chose Emmy-nominated Nimesh Patel, the first Indian-American to write for SNL.
> 
> The event quickly spiraled out of control.
> *
> Patel allegedly made numerous "offensive” jokes, including about how being a gay black man isn’t a choice since “no one looks in the mirror and thinks, ‘this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it.'”*
> 
> The crowd of roughly 100 students didn’t seem fazed. Three students reported to PJ Media by phone that there was no booing or shouting, but mostly silence as Patel’s racially and ethnically themed jokes fell on politically correct ears.
> 
> Halfway through his skit, organizers jumped on stage, stole the mic, denounced Patel’s jokes, and asked him to wrap up his set. Patel pushed back, and said he was exposing students to ideas that could be found “in the real world.”
> 
> Students then cut his mic and kicked him off stage.
> 
> “Although [my friends and I] weren’t laughing at the jokes, we were all surprised when he got kicked off. None of us were thinking: ‘god this is so bad someone should get rid of him,”” Barnard College student Elle Ferguson told PJ Media on Monday.
> 
> “I was very surprised. Either that means I’m not as sensitive as I should be, or the whole thing was just dramatic,” added Ferguson, clarifying that she didn’t think Patel should have been kicked off. “I’m open to hearing other perspectives,” she added.
> 
> Another Barnard student, Sofia Jao, told The Columbia Spectator she takes offense at Patel’s insinuation that comedy is acceptable “in the real world.”
> 
> “When older generations say you need to stop being so sensitive, it’s like undermining what our generation is trying to do in accepting others and making it safer,” said Jao.
> 
> “Obviously the world is not a safe space but just accepting that it’s not and continuing to perpetuate the un-safeness of it… is saying that it can’t be changed,” she added.
> 
> PJ Media reached out to members of the Columbia Asian American Alliance, the host of cultureSHOCK, but they are declining to respond to media until they decide whether to issue a formal statement on the event.


So, he's offensive for saying being gay is not a choice and that it's hard to be a gay black man.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Trump is the God-Emperor of the world and you all need to recognize.

Neg me you shills.


----------



## Draykorinee

No one is going to neg amateurs.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Another Barnard student, Sofia Jao, told The Columbia Spectator she takes offense at Patel’s insinuation that comedy is acceptable “in the real world.”
> 
> “When older generations say you need to stop being so sensitive, it’s like undermining what our generation is trying to do in accepting others and making it safer,” said Jao.
> 
> “Obviously the world is not a safe space but just accepting that it’s not and continuing to perpetuate the un-safeness of it… is saying that it can’t be changed,” she added.


Dis bitch here wanna make the whole world a safe space.

:wow


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I know Tumblr has a bad reputation but the whole ban on adult content is fucked up , fuck all of the "sponsors" ruining the Internet


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Not surprising at all. :lol So many students are like that, and yes, they are overwhelmingly self-described socialists and communists. I'm sure someone will say they're actually center-right or some shit though. :lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Not surprising at all. :lol So many students are like that, and yes, they are overwhelmingly self-described socialists and communists. I'm sure someone will say they're actually center-right or some shit though. :lol


Social issues have nothing to do with left/right. But, you know that already. Outside of your attempt to get a rise out of me, your post is pointless, because you also already know I don't like these snowflake dipshits any more than you do.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> No one is going to neg amateurs.


Doubt given what I've seen from Pratchett, he's really a Trump Supporter anymore. You have to be a special kind of deep fried spit roasted turkey to be one these days.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Wish we still had a political correctness thread.
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/blog/ivy-league-students-kick-snl-comedian-nimesh-patel-off-stage/
> 
> 
> 
> So, he's offensive for saying being gay is not a choice and that it's hard to be a gay black man.


Even black comedians have come under fire. By this point, nobody but the warriors of justice are allowed to speak of such things and certainly not in a comedic tone. It's ironic that comedians try to appease these people only to find themselves silenced by them. 

You cannot make people laugh who are perpetually offended by everything.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Doubt given what I've seen from Pratchett, he's really a Trump Supporter anymore. You have to be a special kind of deep fried spit roasted turkey to be one these days.


"anymore" :mj

Anyone can go back to the original Trump thread to see where I have stood on him from before day one.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Man savagely beaten by police for no good reason is vindicated by bodycam footage after the police lied about the incident 

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/body-camera-video-bills-game/

https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/02/...t-deputies-after-bloody-arrest-at-bills-game/


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> "anymore" :mj
> 
> Anyone can go back to the original Trump thread to see where I have stood on him from before day one.


It's hard to keep track of who's what these days :Shrug

PS. Welcome back to this hell hole old friend


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> It's hard to keep track of who's what these days :Shrug
> 
> PS. Welcome back to this hell hole old friend


Hell Hole? I was under the impression that WF is being turned into one big SAFE SPACE. That was enough to make me _*not *_want to come back. But you already know that I am a glutton for punishment.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> It's hard to keep track of who's what these days :Shrug












:tucky


----------



## Goku

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






awesome :lmao


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> "anymore" :mj
> 
> Anyone can go back to the original Trump thread to see where I have stood on him from before day one.


Ha, Fair do's. I wouldn't head back in to there if you paid me though ><


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

And just when PETA couldn't get more shit


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> And just when PETA couldn't get more shit




That reminds me of







The GOP don't even care about democracy. 


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...incoming-democratic-governor-attorney-n944001

Lame-duck Wisconsin Republicans vote to weaken incoming Democratic governor, attorney general
The GOP state Senate passed the measures 17-16 with all Republicans except one in support.


MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Senate voted just before sunrise Wednesday following an all-night session to pass a sweeping bill in a lame-duck session designed to empower the GOP-controlled Legislature and weaken the Democrat replacing Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

Republicans pushed on through protests, internal disagreement and Democratic opposition to the measures designed to reduce the powers of incoming Democratic Gov.-elect Tony Evers and Democratic Attorney General-elect Josh Kaul. Both Evers and Kaul urged Republicans not to do it, warning that lawsuits would bring more gridlock to Wisconsin when the new administration, and the first divided government in 10 years, takes over.

But Republicans forged ahead regardless, passing it 17-16 with all Republicans except one in support. All Democrats voted against it. The Assembly was expected to pass the bill later Wednesday, sending it on to Walker for his consideration. Walker has signaled support.

"This is a heck of a way to run a railroad," Democratic Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling said as debate resumed at 5 a.m. "This is embarrassing we're even here."




GOP accused of power grab in Wisconsin, while North Carolina race in limbo after allegations of election fraud
DEC. 4, 201801:34
In one concession, Republicans backed away from giving the Legislature the power to sidestep the attorney general and appoint their own attorney when state laws are challenged in court. An amendment to do away with that provision was part of a Republican rewrite of the bill, made public around 4:30 a.m. after all-night negotiations.

Walker, who was booed and heckled during an afternoon Christmas tree lighting ceremony in the Capitol rotunda, has signaled support for the measures that he would have to sign before they take effect. He's in his final five weeks as governor after losing a bid for a third term to Evers, the state schools superintendent.

Despite the victories by Evers, Kaul and every other Democrat running for statewide office, Republicans maintained majority control in the Legislature for the next two years. Democrats blamed partisan gerrymandering by Republicans for stacking the electoral map against them.

But faced with a Democratic governor for the first time in eight years, legislative Republicans came up with a package of lame-duck bills to protect their priorities and make it harder for Evers to enact his.

"Why are we here today?" Democratic Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz said as the debate of more than nine hours began late Tuesday night. "What are we doing? Nothing we're doing here is about helping the people of Wisconsin. It's about helping politicians. It's about power and self-interest."

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos countered that the bills will ensure a balance of power between the Legislature and the executive branch.

Recommended

Coming Up: Washington arrival ceremony for George H.W. Bush


President Trump arrives for George H.W. Bush funeral service
"We have allowed far too much authority to flow to the executive," Vos said. "To you this is all about politics. To me, it's about the institution."

The bill would weaken the governor's ability to put in place rules that enact laws and shield the state jobs agency from his control until September. It would also limit early voting to no more than two weeks before an election, a restriction similar to what a federal judge ruled was unconstitutional. Democrats were optimistic it would be rejected by the courts again.

The proposal would also weaken the attorney general's office by requiring a legislative committee, rather than the attorney general, to sign off on withdrawing from federal lawsuits. That would stop Evers and Kaul from fulfilling their campaign promises to withdraw Wisconsin from a multi-state lawsuit seeking repeal of the Affordable Care Act. They made opposition to that lawsuit a central part of both of their campaigns.

The Legislature passed another measure to enact Medicaid work requirement rules Walker recently won a federal waiver to establish. The bill would also give the Legislature oversight over the governor seeking future waivers for health care, a change Democrats said would handcuff the new administration.

The proposals come after North Carolina lawmakers took similar steps two years ago. Michigan Republicans also are discussing taking action before a Democratic governor takes over there.

Protesters have come and gone in the Capitol the past two days as lawmakers rushed to pass the bills. The tumult was reminiscent of much larger demonstrations in the opening weeks of Walker's time as governor in 2011, when he effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers.

"The first thing Scott Walker did when he walked through the door of the Capitol was to create chaos," Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach said during Senate debate. "The last thing he is doing is creating chaos."
Associated Press


----------



## virus21




----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/05/north-carolina-election-fraud-investigation-what-we-know/2217832002/



> *How a North Carolina election fraud investigation is holding up a congressional seat*
> 
> WASHINGTON - Democrats in North Carolina are threatening to block Mark Harris, the apparent winner of the state's 9th Congressional District, from taking his new seat in Washington due to an election fraud investigation.
> 
> Harris, a Republican pastor, was ahead of Democrat Dan McCready by 905 votes in the race, according to unofficial ballot totals. But last week, the state elections board refused to certify the results due to "claims of numerous irregularities and concerted fraudulent activities" involving mail-in ballots in the district.
> 
> An investigation was opened, thus making the race one of the last nationwide to be left without a winner.
> 
> Here's what we know about the allegations and what could happen next:
> 
> *How did this all start?
> *
> President Donald Trump won North Carolina with nearly 50 percent of the vote in 2016 but that close margin, along with a blue wave in this year's midterm races, left the 9th Congressional District a toss-up, even though the seat has belonged to Republicans for about 60 years.
> 
> The day after the election, Harris was ahead and McCready's conceded in the race.
> 
> Harris appeared to have won, with numerous news outlets calling the race for him. But that all changed last week.
> 
> The state board of elections, a bi-partisan group with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, refused to certify the election results.
> 
> One board member cited irregularities in the results and pointed to possible fraud.
> 
> The board collected at least six sworn statements from voters who said people came to their homes and urged them to hand over their absentee ballots.
> 
> Democrats cried foul, saying that would be considered ballot-harvesting, a practice that’s illegal in the state.
> What exactly are the allegations?*
> 
> At the center of the controversy appears to be Leslie McCrae Dowless, who worked for Harris' campaign, and a large number of absentee ballots.
> 
> Dowless, a known political operative in the area, is accused of heading a group that would go door-to-door, encouraging people to request an absentee ballot, then go back and collect the ballots and turn them in, which would be an illegal practice. The allegations led to worries about ballot tampering.
> 
> The state's election board released records showing Dowless turned in nearly half of the requests for absentee ballots in Bladen County, according to CNN. A total of more than 1,300 were requested in that county.
> 
> An analysis by the Charlotte Observer of election data shows only about half of the absentee ballots Bladen and Robeson counties, both in the 9th district, were returned, a low percentage when compared to the rest of the state.
> 
> A large majority of those unreturned ballots belonged to African-Americans and Native American voters, the newspaper reported.
> 
> Dowless, who served prison time in 1995 for felony fraud and was convicted of felony perjury in 1992, has worked on get-out-the-vote efforts for various local and legislative candidates through the years.*
> *
> It all goes back to 2016*
> 
> The worries of voter fraud in the 9th Congressional District, specifically in Bladen and Robeson counties, go back to the 2016 election.
> 
> Shortly after that election, Dowless of Bladen County filed an election protest alleging a “massive scheme” by a local political group to run an “absentee ballot mill” designed to improperly turn in votes for a write-in candidate for a local position for which Dowless was running.
> 
> Dowless put his name on an elections protest, backed at the time by the campaign of then-GOP Gov. Pat McCrory, that alleged a “massive scheme” by a local political group to run an “absentee ballot mill” to improperly submit votes for a write-in candidate for a position Dowless was seeking.
> 
> But the board peppered Dowless with questions about his own absentee ballot activities. Dowless acknowledged he hired people in 2016 to urge voters to turn in absentee ballot request forms, which is legal. In sworn testimony, Dowless said he never handled or filled out the actual ballots. The board dismissed Dowless’ protest but sent all of its evidence to local and federal prosecutors.
> 
> The district attorney in Wake County revealed Monday that her office has been investigating potential “voting irregularities” in Bladen County since early this year, going back to 2016.
> 
> The investigation there now includes allegations in this year's midterm races.
> 
> *What's next?*
> 
> Numerous investigations are ongoing, including by the state board of elections.
> 
> The board is meeting later this month, on or before Dec. 21, to hear evidence in the case. It's unclear what will be the result of that meeting.
> 
> It's possible that a new election could be held and a temporary replacement appointed to hold the seat when Congress reconvenes in January.
> 
> Democrats signaled this week that they would fight Harris taking his seat before the investigation and allegations were resolved.
> 
> Incoming Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland said Tuesday that Harris, at this point, is "not eligible for being sworn into the House."
> 
> He said that a "very substantial question" about fraud exists and added he hopes state officials “get to the bottom” of the controversy.
> 
> Hoyer was discussing whether the House Administration Committee, which has some authority over determining the propriety of elections, will get involved.
> 
> North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Wayne Goodwin said Monday it was too soon to know whether the investigation would change the vote tally but said it needs to continue.
> 
> “From what we’ve seen from these sworn affidavits, and we will learn more as the hearing is held, there appears to be election tampering, election rigging, election stealing,” he told reporters.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Draykorinee

The dems are a disaster.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Blame the 18 democrats holdout but not the majority of the republicans?


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Blame the 18 democrats holdout but not the majority of the republicans?


The context is that the Dems can't keep shooting themselves in the foot or just basically being republicans, not oh the Dems fault.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> The context is that the Dems can't keep shooting themselves in the foot or just basically being republicans, not oh the Dems fault.


Individuals have the right to not toe the party line.

Mind you, I think they suck for doing it, but what is the alternative? Party whip forcing everyone to vote along party lines in every issue like sheeps?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071066045270523905
:mj4


----------



## Martins

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Why is every news article about this Kevin Hart business titled something like "Kevin Hart's refusal to apologize etc. etc."

He literally wrote "I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past"

Should he take a walk of atonement? Should he let himself be tarred and feathered? WHAT AM I MISSING HERE


----------



## virus21

Martins said:


> Why is every news article about this Kevin Hart business titled something like "Kevin Hart's refusal to apologize etc. etc."
> 
> He literally wrote "I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past"
> 
> Should he take a walk of atonement? Should he let himself be tarred and feathered? WHAT AM I MISSING HERE


His mistake was apologizing in the first place. Nothing will be enough for these people. They want an inquisition.





Any one want to say Social Justice isn't a religion?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-gop-candidate-owes-34000-to-operative-accused-of-fraud-2018-12?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=reddit.com



> *North Carolina Republican Mark Harris revealed his campaign owes $34,000 to a political operative accused of illegally collecting — and not submitting — absentee ballots*
> 
> Mark Harris, the Republican candidate for the House seat in North Carolina's 9th congressional district, revealed on Thursday night that his campaign owed over $34,000 to a political operative who's been accused of election fraud.
> 
> The operative, Leslie McCrae Dowless, was contracted by a consulting group that Harris' campaign paid for "Bladen absentee, early voting poll workers; reimbursement door to door," according to an F.E.C. filing.
> 
> Dowless is a convicted felon who has faced jail time for fraud and perjury, but has denied any wrongdoing in his work on this election.
> 
> Mark Harris, the Republican candidate for the House seat in North Carolina's 9th congressional district, revealed on Thursday night that his campaign owed over $34,000 to a political operative who's been accused of illegally collecting absentee ballots from voters and only sending in those in favor of Harris.
> 
> The operative, Leslie McCrae Dowless, was contracted by Red Dome Group, a Charlotte-based consulting group that Harris' campaign hired to help turnout voters in rural Bladen County.
> 
> The debt was reported in a Federal Election Commission filing, which described the payment for "reimbursement payment for Bladen absentee, early voting poll workers; reimbursement door to door," first reported on by The New York Times on Friday.
> 
> Dowless, court records show, is a convicted felon who has faced jail time for fraud and perjury. He has denied any wrongdoing in this election cycle.
> 
> North Carolina's Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement refused to certify Harris' 904-vote win over Democrat Dan McCready, who withdrew his concession on Thursday.
> 
> Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, said he would be open to holding a new election as the reports of voter fraud in Bladen County continue to mount. State investigators are currently looking into irregularities concerning absentee ballots, and the Board will hold an evidentiary hearing at some point on December 21 at the latest.
> 
> In a statement to INSIDER, Woodhouse said the state's GOP believes the Board of Elections should hold a public hearing and "fully lay out the facts" regarding the fraud accusations.
> 
> "If they can show a substantial likelihood it could have changed the race, then we fully would support a new election," he said. "If they hold a public hearing and simply can't determine one way or the other then, we would not oppose a short delay on the question of certification until they have more answers."
> 
> Several district residents have described having their absentee ballots collected, also known as "ballot harvesting," which is illegal in North Carolina. Speaking to local news station WSOC 9, a Charlotte ABC affiliate, Cheryl Kinlaw, a woman who said she was paid $100 to pick up the ballots, said she didn't think this was illegal because Dowless "has been doing it for years."
> 
> "I feel bad now that I know that it wasn't legal, but I didn't know at the time," she said.
> 
> And the numbers are striking. Elections experts have found that while 19% of absentee voters in Bladen County were registered Republicans, 62% of the County's mailed-in ballots were votes for Harris and the GOP.
> 
> On Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi warned that the House could refuse to seat Harris if his victory is approved by the state Board.
> 
> "Any member-elect can object to the seating and swearing-in of another member-elect. We'll see how that goes," she said.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Since there is no PC thread anymore will link this picture here. Seems Kevin Hart got into trouble for some of his old tweets and Nick Cannon came out with a steel chair to defend him.










Silly Nick, how long have you been in Hollywood? You should know by now Jewish or White women can say whatever they want and not be held accountable. Schumer, Silverman and especially Handler have said racist, homophobic, sexist and just plain bad or stolen jokes and nobody cares!

Now Kevin or Dave or any black Comedian says something.. well that's a different story. :laugh:


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Nick Cannon being a fucking savage :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Nick Cannon being a fucking savage :lol


His Twitter is pretty good at times, he's pretty spot on when it comes to sniffing out this kinda stuff. He's one of the few Celebs that seems genuine enough.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Thanks to Mariah, Nick Cannon can speak wit dat IDGAF real talk Money


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*Eddie Murphy Being Courted For Kevin Hart Oscars Gig: Academy Hopes He ‘Will Agree’*

Um... members of the academy...


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Facebook:










Corporate Media takeover of the internet in full swing.

I'm in no way an advocate of everything every article ever writes, but if you can't even open up a dialogue about certain issues based solely on source of information, then you know you are part of a major system of propaganda and indoctrination that swings thought a certain way. 

Ironically, this article was an attempt to discuss the Chinese re-education camps only to discover that Americans are pretty much doing the same thing to their own people.

Here's what I can share on FB:








- Natural News claiming that Vaccines cause autism. 

Welcome to America.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Facebook:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate Media takeover of the internet in full swing.


I would say getting out of the EU would help us avoid article 13 but seeing as the Tories helped get it through I can't see us not incorporating it in to law.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Facebook:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate Media takeover of the internet in full swing.
> 
> I'm in no way an advocate of everything every article ever writes, but if you can't even open up a dialogue about certain issues based solely on source of information, then you know you are part of a major system of propaganda and indoctrination that swings thought a certain way.
> 
> Ironically, this article was an attempt to discuss the Chinese re-education camps only to discover that Americans are pretty much doing the same thing to their own people.


Doesn't help that companies and social media that's so large it should be considered a Public Forum and is censored by these very companies! Then we'll hear people say.."B-but Sally.. these are private c-c-companies.. they can do what they want!". Oh okay, like sell your private data and help the Government spy on you and basically work as the arm of the Government and Special Interest groups? Kay!

It's not like technology and communication hasn't evolved beyond the current laws, nobody would ever taking advantage of that! Nope, not ever! Hey, long as my side isn't a target it's all good. It's like it never comes back and bites you on the ass.. not once! :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I would say getting out of the EU would help us avoid article 13 but seeing as the Tories helped get it through I can't see us not incorporating it in to law.


Over here it's FOSTA combined with _intentional _suppression of dialogue especially considering that I can continue to share unscientific nonsense while I can't share an article that's trying to start a dialogue about an issue that people have little information about except that which is shaped by the corporate media. Tumblr is pretty much gone (and while some of Tumblr is cancer, there was a thriving community of adults having educational conversations and dialogue about kink and deviant sex as well as exploring and developing mature art and content that allowed them to be entrepreneurs). 

There's really no way to pussy foot around the issue when it's so egregiously obvious now. Ironically, the article I was sharing was an attempt at an objective look instead of a knee-jerk hysterical response that the corporate media intentionally crafts. 



Miss Sally said:


> It's not like technology and communication hasn't evolved beyond the current laws, nobody would ever taking advantage of that! Nope, not ever! Hey, long as my side isn't a target it's all good. It's like it never comes back and bites you on the ass.. not once! :laugh:


Well, Americans have been open to propaganda since WWII at least. 

If you go back and look at our history, you'll find some pretty shocking things that our government used to tell people .. and that hasn't changed. Look at the Gulf War, look at the Afghanistan invasion, look at the occupation of Iraq, look at the Syrian propaganda etc etc. The creation of the Taliban, the funding of global terrorism, the over-throw of several governments, the subjugation of entire populations to make sure America's richest corporate entities continue to have exploited labor etc etc etc. The list is HUGE. 

At this point if anyone believes anything that the corporate media shells out on the behest of whatever political party is in power then doom on them, I guess.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Over here it's FOSTA combined with _intentional _suppression of dialogue especially considering that I can continue to share unscientific nonsense while I can't share an article that's trying to start a dialogue about an issue that people have little information about except that which is shaped by the corporate media. Tumblr is pretty much gone (and while some of Tumblr is cancer, there was a thriving community of adults having educational conversations and dialogue about kink and deviant sex as well as exploring and developing mature art and content that allowed them to be entrepreneurs).
> 
> There's really no way to pussy foot around the issue when it's so egregiously obvious now. Ironically, the article I was sharing was an attempt at an objective look instead of a knee-jerk hysterical response that the corporate media intentionally crafts.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Americans have been open to propaganda since WWII at least.
> 
> If you go back and look at our history, you'll find some pretty shocking things that our government used to tell people .. and that hasn't changed. Look at the Gulf War, look at the Afghanistan invasion, look at the occupation of Iraq, look at the Syrian propaganda etc etc. The creation of the Taliban, the funding of global terrorism, the over-throw of several governments, the subjugation of entire populations to make sure America's richest corporate entities continue to have exploited labor etc etc etc. The list is HUGE.
> 
> At this point if anyone believes anything that the corporate media shells out on the behest of whatever political party is in power then doom on them, I guess.


I believe in 2013, the Government made it legal to do Propaganda! Of course they used it before this but if I remember correctly it allows the MSM to basically say whatever they want. :laugh:


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/09/universities-launch-drive-recruit-white-males-low-numbers-give/



> *Universities launch drive to recruit more white males as low numbers give them 'minority group' status*
> 
> Universities are setting targets to recruit more white male students after low numbers meant they are now classed a “minority group”.
> 
> Essex and Aston Universities have become Britain’s first non-elite institutions to write the target into their official recruitment plans, putting white males on a par with Black students and women engineers.
> 
> White British students are in a minority at roughly one in ten institutions, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency.
> 
> Meanwhile on certain courses such as pharmacy, business and some science degrees, more than seven in 10 students is from an ethnic minority.
> 
> In 2016-17, 27 per cent of the UK undergraduate intake were white males, down from 30 per cent in 2007-08.
> 
> Oxford University has previously announced a drive to attract more of the group.
> 
> Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), which has released a report on the plight of young men in education, told the Mail on Sunday: 'When putting together our report, we were shocked to find so few higher education institutions had these sorts of targets.
> 
> “The problem is so evident and we've continued to go backwards.”
> 
> "Some people oppose this whole agenda - we were told we were wrong to look at gender and should care only about class.”
> 
> The Institute’s report calls for more foundation year courses preparing students for studying a degree as a means of encouraging more young men to apply.
> 
> Official figures also point to a growing gender gap in British universities, with 23 out of 149 higher education institutions having more female than male students.
> 
> Previous research has indicated that university staff have a mixed reaction to schemes aimed specifically at white boys in case it leads to accusations of racism.
> 
> A study led by King’s College London said: “We found that people were quite uncomfortable with the idea of running a targeted activity with this group, in a way that we've not encountered, for example, targeting young black African men.
> 
> “We had quite a lot of people saying.
> 
> "This isn't going to be a white-only event, is it?”
> 
> Essex and Aston’s initiatives follows a warning by the Office for Students, which regulates universities, in September, that institutions could be punished unless they give a higher proportion of top degrees to black students.
> 
> The body plans to set a series of national targets to apply to all universities.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/09/universities-launch-drive-recruit-white-males-low-numbers-give/


Gee, I can't imagine why.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/09/universities-launch-drive-recruit-white-males-low-numbers-give/


Aww, you mean white guys don't want to come learn about how they are singularly to blame for all of the world's evils present, past, and future? How their race were the ONLY ones to invade, conquer, and enslave others? How every biological impulse they have stems from their own toxic masculinity? How their very existence oppresses all those around them who are different? Really can't imagine why!

Meanwhile, Brett Kavanaugh single-handedly defunds Planned Parenthood: 

https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/10/kavanaugh-sides-with-liberal-justices-sc

And by defunds I mean is the swing vote in denying to hear a case that would have lead to defunding Planned Parenthood. :heston Conservatives aren't too happy. Wonder how the _true_ conservatives feel? @BruiserKC Wonder how the liberals feel knowing their absolute batshit insane hysteria was unfounded and they aren't going to get to live out their Handmaid's Tale oppression-porn fantasies?

Everyone is dumb but me.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/09/universities-launch-drive-recruit-white-males-low-numbers-give/


This isn't really surprising, as much as people cawed about White Males, the numbers have shown Female students both Black and White have outnumbered their male counterparts, White Females pretty much outnumber everyone in College. 

So what did they think was going to happen? Identity Politics opened the door and now everyone will eventually be a protected class and get their own version of affirmative action. The push for class based over gender isn't surprising either though that won't work, poor Whites were lesser considerations, now they'll be on par.

I predicted this would happen when Identity Politics begun rearing it's head. Now unless Universities just outright discriminate.. Which they won't because it's a major Lawsuit waiting to happen.. They'll have to bite the bullet. Could very well see White Females being overlooked to recruit White Males and Asians and Black Females overlooked to include more Black Males.

Ladies and Gentlemen.. I give you Identity Politics! Horray!


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Shenanigans with Michelle Obama's book sale numbers

I'm not surprised. 

- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Shenanigans with Michelle Obama's book sale numbers
> 
> I'm not surprised.
> 
> - Vic


Politicians buying their own books to get on the best seller lists is a fairly common practice. Many people have been busted on it in the past.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Since there is no PC thread anymore will link this picture here. Seems Kevin Hart got into trouble for some of his old tweets and Nick Cannon came out with a steel chair to defend him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly Nick, how long have you been in Hollywood? You should know by now Jewish or White women can say whatever they want and not be held accountable. Schumer, Silverman and especially Handler have said racist, homophobic, sexist and just plain bad or stolen jokes and nobody cares!
> 
> Now Kevin or Dave or any black Comedian says something.. well that's a different story. :laugh:


BUT MUH TRIBALISM!

How very dare you...


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Aww, you mean white guys don't want to come learn about how they are singularly to blame for all of the world's evils present, past, and future? How their race were the ONLY ones to invade, conquer, and enslave others? How every biological impulse they have stems from their own toxic masculinity? How their very existence oppresses all those around them who are different? Really can't imagine why!
> 
> Meanwhile, Brett Kavanaugh single-handedly defunds Planned Parenthood:
> 
> https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/10/kavanaugh-sides-with-liberal-justices-sc
> 
> And by defunds I mean is the swing vote in denying to hear a case that would have lead to defunding Planned Parenthood. :heston Conservatives aren't too happy. Wonder how the _true_ conservatives feel? @BruiserKC Wonder how the liberals feel knowing their absolute batshit insane hysteria was unfounded and they aren't going to get to live out their Handmaid's Tale oppression-porn fantasies?
> 
> Everyone is dumb but me.


Other then I think it’s hilarious that Trump died on this hill for a squish, I have nothing else to say.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Other then I think it’s hilarious that Trump died on this hill for a squish, I have nothing else to say.


Well smart conservatives like Ben Shapiro knew what they were getting, which is why he wanted someone else, but I think most people defended Kavanaugh not because they thought he was the supreme conservative but because they didn't like the way the left was trying to destroy a man for political reasons. Hell I'm an An-Cap with no dog in the fight and I was rooting for Kavanaugh just because of that. Amy Barrett would've been a much better choice though.

The mocking of Kavanaugh's testimony remains one of the most vile things I've ever seen so many people take part in. After all of the hysteria and evil directed at the Kavanaugh family they attacked him for being upset about it. Next-level bullying. Fuck everyone who engaged in it. Same goes for people who threatened Dr Ford, but nobody was getting widespread media support for their villainy there.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Well smart conservatives like Ben Shapiro knew what they were getting, which is why he wanted someone else, but I think most people defended Kavanaugh not because they thought he was the supreme conservative but because they didn't like the way the left was trying to destroy a man for political reasons. Hell I'm an An-Cap with no dog in the fight and I was rooting for Kavanaugh just because of that. Amy Barrett would've been a much better choice though.
> 
> The mocking of Kavanaugh's testimony remains one of the most vile things I've ever seen so many people take part in. After all of the hysteria and evil directed at the Kavanaugh family they attacked him for being upset about it. Next-level bullying. Fuck everyone who engaged in it. Same goes for people who threatened Dr Ford, but nobody was getting widespread media support for their villainy there.


I agree that it was a shitshow, no question. At the same time, what I saw out of Kavanaugh told me he wasn’t the best choice. I understand his anger, but what if someone acted in his courtroom the way he acted in that hearing, I am sure he would have been very unhappy. A judge had to keep his cool when everything else is going to shit. Look at how Thomas handled his situation, that is a better option.

And now we see why as far as rulings. Remember it was his decision in Seven Sky vs Holder that gave SCOTUS to consider Obamacare a legal tax.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> I agree that it was a shitshow, no question. At the same time, what I saw out of Kavanaugh told me he wasn’t the best choice. I understand his anger, but what if someone acted in his courtroom the way he acted in that hearing, I am sure he would have been very unhappy. A judge had to keep his cool when everything else is going to shit. Look at how Thomas handled his situation, that is a better option.
> 
> And now we see why as far as rulings. Remember it was his decision in Seven Sky vs Holder that gave SCOTUS to consider Obamacare a legal tax.


It wasn't the courtroom, it was a political circus where he and his family were being treated as collateral damage. I found his restraint admirable.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> smart conservatives like Ben Shapiro


"smart conservatives like Ben Shapiro"

:duck


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072684071606718464


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Ben Shapiro is obviously very intelligent. Just because someone has very different views than you doesn't mean they must not be smart.

Also looks like Kyle (who I also think is intelligent) called the methodology of that index into question a couple tweets later because it lists Harris, Warren, and Booker as more progressive than Bernie Sanders. Guess you didn't notice that.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> "smart conservatives like Ben Shapiro"
> 
> :duck
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072684071606718464


Beto is such a phony, not sure why people fall for this slight of hand trick. These Politicians are performing Grandpa level of magic tricks with the "coin from behind you ear" trick and people fucking fall for it every. fucking. time.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Ben Shapiro is obviously very intelligent. Just because someone has very different views than you doesn't mean they must not be smart.
> 
> Also looks like Kyle (who I also think is intelligent) called the methodology of that index into question a couple tweets later because it lists Harris, Warren, and Booker as more progressive than Bernie Sanders. Guess you didn't notice that.


I posted the tweet before his follow up tweets. The point remains the same, even if Kyle used a suspect list to prove his point.

Beto voted to deregulate banks and Wall Street as a congressman. That fact alone is a non-starter with Bernie supporters. You don't get to continue to carry the moniker of a smart conservative when you consistently say retarded shit like Bernie supporters will support Beto O'Rourke. He might be able to fool the idiot liberal sheep but he won't fool people who pay attention to actual policy and voting records.

If you want to dig deeper, you can go back and find quite a lot of things Shapiro has said that has been proven wrong a thousand times over. Anyone who still falls for his fast talking shtick is a rube.

I remember one time Shapiro claimed that global sea rise is not a big deal because the people who own houses on the coast could just sell them and build new houses further inland. It takes an extra special kind of stoopid to say something like that.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I posted the tweet before his follow up tweets. The point remains the same, even if Kyle used a suspect list to prove his point.
> 
> Beto voted to deregulate banks and Wall Street as a congressman. That fact alone is a non-starter with Bernie supporters. You don't get to continue to carry the moniker of a smart conservative when you consistently say retarded shit like Bernie supporters will support Beto O'Rourke. He might be able to fool the idiot liberal sheep but he won't fool people who pay attention to actual policy and voting records.
> 
> If you want to dig deeper, you can go back and find quite a lot of things Shapiro has said that has been proven wrong a thousand times over. Anyone who still falls for his fast talking shtick is a rube.
> 
> I remember one time Shapiro claimed that global sea rise is not a big deal because the people who own houses on the coast could just sell them and build new houses further inland. It takes an extra special kind of stoopid to say something like that.


I didn't mean the tweet, I meant the list itself.

You will absolutely be able to fool most Bernie supporters by saying the right things. It's called pacing and leading, it's a persuasion tactic which Beto used to almost win a senate seat in Texas. It will be effective on the national stage because most people in any group aren't going to be super rational. Bernie supporters are not a group of super-humans capable of total rationality. Don't be too upset or surprised when (if) Beto runs he gets a ton of support from the Bernie folks by hitting the right notes, regardless of his record. 

As for Ben Shapiro, being wrong about things and making fallacious arguments to support your bias doesn't preclude someone from being intelligent. We're almost entirely irrational beings. If you think you're not then you're hopelessly deluded.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I didn't mean the tweet, I meant the list itself.
> 
> You will absolutely be able to fool most Bernie supporters by saying the right things. It's called pacing and leading, it's a persuasion tactic which Beto used to almost win a senate seat in Texas. It will be effective on the national stage because most people in any group aren't going to be super rational. Bernie supporters are not a group of super-humans capable of total rationality. Don't be too upset or surprised when (if) Beto runs he gets a ton of support from the Bernie folks by hitting the right notes, regardless of his record.


Getting votes from Democrats in Texas in a race against Ted Cruz is not the same thing as getting support from Bernie supporters nationally.

The idea that your average Bernie supporter would be so gullible as to support a neoliberal like Beto just because he put on a good bullshit stump speech is not based on any real evidence. They didn't like Bernie because he's a smooth talking politician. They liked him because they liked his policies and he had the record to back it up. Beto does not have any of the things that made Bernie so popular in the first place. Martin O'Malley had a platform closer to Bernie than Hillary the last time around and he got about as much support in the primaries as Beto would were he to run. Shapiro is just making shit up. It's not the first nor will it be the last time he has come out with statements on topics when he has no idea wtf he is talking about.



> As for Ben Shapiro, being wrong about things and making fallacious arguments to support your bias doesn't preclude someone from being intelligent. We're almost entirely irrational beings. If you think you're not then you're hopelessly deluded.


So, your argument is that Shapiro is actually smart, but he's just a full of shit liar. That's at least a more honest assessment. If that's the case, then it's too bad that Shapiro isn't more honest about his beliefs and it's even more of a shame that anyone is stupid enough to buy into the bullshit he knowingly lies about. I'd respect him more for being stupid than being a liar.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Getting votes from Democrats in Texas in a race against Ted Cruz is not the same thing as getting support from Bernie supporters nationally.
> 
> The idea that your average Bernie supporter would be so gullible as to support a neoliberal like Beto just because he put on a good bullshit stump speech is not based on any real evidence. They didn't like Bernie because he's a smooth talking politician. They liked him because they liked his policies and he had the record to back it up. Beto does not have any of the things that made Bernie so popular in the first place. Martin O'Malley had a platform closer to Bernie than Hillary the last time around and he got about as much support in the primaries as Beto would were he to run. Shapiro is just making shit up. It's not the first nor will it be the last time he has come out with statements on topics when he has no idea wtf he is talking about.


O'Malley was boring and lacked charisma. Beto is exciting, young, high energy, has great social media engagement, and other tools that make comparing him to Martin O'Malley a very silly exercise. You're highly overestimating how much most people (and again, Bernie supporters are not some super race of American voter) care about rational shit like voting records. They really, really don't. If they did we wouldn't have the corporatist two-party system that we have where Democrats campaign on being progressive and Republicans campaign on being fiscally conservative and neither party is either of those things. 



> So, your argument is that Shapiro is actually smart, but he's just a full of shit liar. That's at least a more honest assessment. If that's the case, then it's too bad that Shapiro isn't more honest about his beliefs and it's even more of a shame that anyone is stupid enough to buy into the bullshit he knowingly lies about. I'd respect him more for being stupid than being a liar.


He's not a liar, he's irrational. Just like you, me, and literally everyone else on Earth. There's no deception there. If he wanted to be deceptive he wouldn't take on so many fights with people all over the political spectrum. That's not how a snake operates.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> O'Malley was boring and lacked charisma. Beto is exciting, young, high energy, has great social media engagement, and other tools that make comparing him to Martin O'Malley a very silly exercise. You're highly overestimating how much most people (and again, Bernie supporters are not some super race of American voter) care about rational shit like voting records. They really, really don't. If they did we wouldn't have the corporatist two-party system that we have where Democrats campaign on being progressive and Republicans campaign on being fiscally conservative and neither party is either of those things.


That there are a lot of stupid voters in this country is not something you are going to an argument from me about. But, the argument that Bernie supporters only care about superficial shit and would be easily swayed by a good bullshitter, even if their voting record goes against everything they are saying now, is based entirely on your preconceived notions and not one iota on actual evidence. 

Besides, and you know this, I don't even agree all that much with Bernie's platform either. I'm just not going to let it slide when a jackass like Shapiro comes out and makes retarded and/or lying statements. I'm not defending Bernie or his platform but I have been around enough Bernie supporters to know that policy is always the top priority. They're not a cult like the Hillary supporters who made it about her. Bernie's popularity came because of his policies, not because he's Bernie Sanders.

Also, the fact that we have a corporatist duopoly has a lot more to do with money in politics than it does idiot voters. 



> He's not a liar, he's irrational. Just like you, me, and literally everyone else on Earth. There's no deception there. If he wanted to be deceptive he wouldn't take on so many fights with people all over the political spectrum. That's not how a snake operates.


Calling him irrational is a dodge. He's either stupid for saying the things he does or he knows he's wrong and he is lying. It's one or the other. There's is no 3rd option.


----------



## Draykorinee

Ben 'socialism violates the ten commandments' Shapiro.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> It wasn't the courtroom, it was a political circus where he and his family were being treated as collateral damage. I found his restraint admirable.


I saw him act out in that hearing. Yes, I get the anger that he felt there and understand that he was catching a lot of shit (I can't say one way or the other whether the flak was justified or not). But you just can't act like that and expect people to think you are impartial in a courtroom. A judge can't let them see him/her sweat, regardless of the circumstances. They are supposed to be a rock of reason even if the entire courtroom has become a circus. The moment he lashed out, I shook my head and wondered why this was the hill that Trump and McConnell chose to die on when we had so many better options out there. 

The conservatives are not happy because they didn't get another Scalia but another Kennedy on SCOTUS. Many of them voiced their concerns but got caught up in the hysteria themselves and were going to dig in their heels regardless. The better option would have been to pull Kavanaugh and replace him with Barrett. But now they are stuck with this man.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

As tech companies become increasingly politically relevant, this feels like an important story to share:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072589687489998848
Brings this Bill Hicks bit to mind:


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Also looks like Kyle (who I also think is intelligent) called the methodology of that index into question a couple tweets later because it lists Harris, Warren, and Booker as more progressive than Bernie Sanders. Guess you didn't notice that.


Cause Bernie votes with the right on gun control which would screw up his ranking. 

But that is perhaps fair.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> As tech companies become increasingly politically relevant, this feels like an important story to share:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072589687489998848
> Brings this Bill Hicks bit to mind:


I won't touch the internet without both adblock & ublock, a vpn and a few other safety measures that I have put in place. The way these companies track people and use targeted advertising is Orwellian, to say the least. I can't speak for anyone else but the only people who I want knowing what websites I visit are me and the people I choose to identify myself to.

I know how belligerently opposed to regulations you can be but considering the story you just posted, don't you think there should be some kind of law to protect our privacy on the internet? Say, the only way they are allowed to do targeted advertising is to people who specifically opt-in to a program? Maybe there should be a law to prevent these companies from tracking us without our express permission. Just a thought...

InB4 "if people don't want to be tracked, they have the freedom to not use the internet".


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I know how belligerently opposed to regulations you can be but considering the story you just posted, don't you think there should be some kind of law to protect our privacy on the internet? Say, the only way they are allowed to do targeted advertising is to people who specifically opt-in to a program? Maybe there should be a law to prevent these companies from tracking us without our express permission. Just a thought...
> 
> InB4 "if people don't want to be tracked, they have the freedom to not use the internet".


The government tracks everyone without their consent and then lies about it with no accountability. :lol They're far worse than Google and Amazon trying to show you relevant ads when you use their services. We can just not use Amazon or Google. There are alternatives. We can't do anything about the government's constant surveillance. Fuck no I don't want a new law, a new expansion of government power. That is never my solution to anything and never will be.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The government tracks everyone without their consent and then lies about it with no accountability. :lol They're far worse than Google and Amazon trying to show you relevant ads when you use their services. We can just not use Amazon or Google. *There are alternatives. We can't do anything about the government's constant surveillance.* Fuck no I don't want a new law, a new expansion of government power. That is never my solution to anything and never will be.


First, you say...

"There are alternatives."

...to Google and Amazon.

Then, you say...

"We can't do anything about the government's constant surveillance." 

...there are no alternatives to government surveillance, even though they're worse than Google and Amazon.

So instead of stopping the government from spying on it's own citizens, your solution is to let corporations spy on you too because the government is even worse. One's bad, the other is worse, so let's do nothing to stop either of them because something something ideology.

There aren't enough fpalms on the entire internet for your lack of logic.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> First, you say...
> 
> "There are alternatives."
> 
> ...to Google and Amazon.
> 
> Then, you say...
> 
> "We can't do anything about the government's constant surveillance."
> 
> ...there are no alternatives to government surveillance, even though they're worse than Google and Amazon.


Well we could just not have a government but unfortunately people aren't down. :sad: 



> So instead of stopping the government from spying on it's own citizens


lmao wut obviously that would be my preference it just won't happen



> your solution is to let corporations spy on you too because the government is even worse.


It's not spying if I'm voluntarily using their service and I know they're tracking what I do to tailor ads to me. It's just a trade-off I accept for using their service. Whatever. With government I don't get a choice. 



> One's bad, the other is worse, so let's do nothing to stop either of them because something something ideology.


I didn't say we shouldn't stop the government from spying on us, you just made that up so you could argue against something dumb I never said because you can't argue against the things I actually said.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Well we could just not have a government but unfortunately people aren't down. :sad:


No government, no USA. Get rid of the government, then another government would move in and take over or the billionaire class would simply create another one they can control just like we have now. Reducing the size of the government and decentralizing power is an achievable goal. Not having any government at all is not something that will ever happen. If you ever want to solve our problems, maybe you should try suggesting realistic solutions.



> lmao wut obviously that would be my preference it just won't happen


It can happen if enough of the population demands it. It's you who is unwilling to support laws that prevent government overreach. That's what makes your posts on this topic so laughably retarded. You don't want the government spying on you but you won't support the one and only thing that would stop them.



> It's not spying if I'm voluntarily using their service and I know they're tracking what I do to tailor ads to me. It's just a trade-off I accept for using their service. Whatever. With government I don't get a choice.


The internet is an integral part of modern life and it is ever increasingly by the day more impossible to function within society without it. This argument holds no water. Telling people their only choices are between living off the grid or being spied on by corporations and the government sounds more and more retarded every time you say it.



> I didn't say we shouldn't stop the government from spying on us, you just made that up so you could argue against something dumb I never said because you can't argue against the things I actually said.


There's only one way to stop the government from spying on us and that's passing laws that prevent the government from spying on us. It's, like, some malfunction or short circuit in your brain or something? I dunno but whatever it is it's preventing you from grasping the concept that a law decreasing the power of the government is not the same thing as giving more power to the government. 

Right now we've got a strong centralized government that doesn't answer to the people. Spying on citizens is against the will of the people. If enough people stand up and say fuck you, you aren't going to spy on us anymore, that's going against the will of the government. That's not giving more power to the government. That's the people taking power away from them.

I know you don't want to accept this but not every problem in life can be solved with an individualist philosophy. Some problems actually require working with others to achieve a common goal. Shocking, I know, but true.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Short of coming out on the streets there won't be change. 

It would also be a litmus test to see how long it takes for this massive government to turn on its citizens. 

As far as I can tell, the Yellow Jackets in France had some of their demands met.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*















Did Steve King just try to use the CEO of Google as tech support for his granddaughter's iPhone?

Can I throw out a novel idea? What if to qualify to be part of a congressional committee or hearing you had to actually have some knowledge about the subject the committee/hearing pertains to. 

Fuck me.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Short of coming out on the streets there won't be change.
> 
> It would also be a litmus test to see how long it takes for this massive government to turn on its citizens.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the Yellow Jackets in France had some of their demands met.


While I don't condone violent riots, a nationwide protest/general strike that brought the entire economy to a screeching halt wouldn't be such a bad thing. Nothing is ever going to seriously change as long as the ruling elites are able to maintain the status quo. The people of France understand that a lot better than Americans do.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> While I don't condone violent riots, a nationwide protest/general strike that brought the entire economy to a screeching halt wouldn't be such a bad thing. Nothing is ever going to seriously change as long as the ruling elites are able to maintain the status quo. The people of France understand that a lot better than Americans do.


I wouldn't mind peaceful striking and protesting but that usually works in societies where the elite aren't as powerful or as corrupt as they are in America imo. 

It's also very fascinating to me that the same group that claims that the state is too powerful and therefore it needs guns to protect itself from the state continues to vote in the most authoritarian/warmongering people into power, giving them more power and the on top of that breeds young men that they give up to that state generation after generation after generation. 

There is nothing more retarded than American "patriotism" in the world imo. 

Ironically, patriotism used to include criticism of the state and also a healthy desire for accountability of the state. Not just voting like sheep.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Well considering that the same right that claims that the state is too powerful and therefore it needs guns to protect itself from the state continues to vote in the most authoritarian/warmongering and breeding young men for the state.
> 
> There is nothing more retarded than American "patriotism" in the world imo.


If you ask them, many will tell you that we have an authoritarian government and that yes, they need their guns to protect themselves from Big Government. So when these very same people cried foul when someone actually shot a Congressman, I was like, wait, what? Isn't that precisely why you say you need guns? :lol


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> While I don't condone violent riots, a nationwide protest/general strike that brought the entire economy to a screeching halt wouldn't be such a bad thing. Nothing is ever going to seriously change as long as the ruling elites are able to maintain the status quo. The people of France understand that a lot better than Americans do.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if you live in America and you aren't where you want to be in life, it's not America's fault.

People aren't striking in mass amounts because life in America is actually pretty great for most people. Sorry.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> If you ask them, many will tell you that we have an authoritarian government and that yes, they need their guns to protect themselves from Big Government. So when these very same people cried foul when someone actually shot a Congressman, I was like, wait, what? Isn't that precisely why you say you need guns? [emoji38]


I know. They're given their arguments by the political parties themselves so they just repeat those words back without thinking about them. You can predict what most people are going to say before they say it because you know what the mainstream ideology is.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if you live in America and you aren't where you want to be in life, it's not America's fault.
> 
> People aren't striking in mass amounts because life in America is actually pretty great for most people. Sorry.


^^^Proof of the power of American exceptionalism propaganda.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> No government, no USA. Get rid of the government, then another government would move in and take over or the billionaire class would simply create another one they can control just like we have now. Reducing the size of the government and decentralizing power is an achievable goal. Not having any government at all is not something that will ever happen. If you ever want to solve our problems, maybe you should try suggesting realistic solutions.


Reducing the size and scope of government is literally what I advocate for all the time, and what you advocate against. :lol You're the one who has "there should be a law..." as the go-to solution to every problem. 



> It can happen if enough of the population demands it. It's you who is unwilling to support laws that prevent government overreach. That's what makes your posts on this topic so laughably retarded. You don't want the government spying on you but you won't support the one and only thing that would stop them.


This is a fantasy you have concocted. What did I not support that would stop government spying? This literally never happened. Of course I would support that. Why are you so dishonest? 



> The internet is an integral part of modern life and it is ever increasingly by the day more impossible to function within society without it. This argument holds no water. Telling people their only choices are between living off the grid or being spied on by corporations and the government sounds more and more retarded every time you say it.


The internet is integral because of the quality of the private services that exist on it. Giving the government the power to control those services when the government only ever makes things worse is not a good idea. I wouldn't wanna do without AAA, I'd sooner shoot myself than have to deal with the DMV instead. Get the difference? 



> There's only one way to stop the government from spying on us and that's passing laws that prevent the government from spying on us. It's, like, some malfunction or short circuit in your brain or something? I dunno but whatever it is it's preventing you from grasping the concept that a law decreasing the power of the government is not the same thing as giving more power to the government.
> 
> Right now we've got a strong centralized government that doesn't answer to the people. Spying on citizens is against the will of the people. If enough people stand up and say fuck you, you aren't going to spy on us anymore, that's going against the will of the government. That's not giving more power to the government. That's the people taking power away from them.


Dude I never said I was against the government passing a law to stop itself from spying (though any such law would be disregarded without consequence as they ALREADY do illegal shit they aren't supposed to do and nothing happens). I don't know why you're arguing against a point I literally never made or would make. We were talking about PRIVATE companies tracking the activity of people on their services. Don't talk about a short-circuit in my brain when you're just making shit up to argue against. 



> I know you don't want to accept this but not every problem in life can be solved with an individualist philosophy. Some problems actually require working with others to achieve a common goal. Shocking, I know, but true.


Individualism doesn't preclude voluntary cooperation for mutual gain. You oversimplify ideas based on their names because you don't read. You do the same thing with capitalism all the time. :lol "It's about profit no matter what!" No. Star Trek caricatures are not a sufficient means through which to understand an economic system.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> If you ask them, many will tell you that we have an authoritarian government and that yes, they need their guns to protect themselves from Big Government. So when these very same people cried foul when someone actually shot a Congressman, I was like, wait, what? Isn't that precisely why you say you need guns? :lol


What a ridiculous conflation. :lol There's an obvious difference between, say defending yourself against armed thugs trying to enforce the government's will against you, and just going out and trying to murder some woman giving a speech. The way you resort to such wild misrepresentations of other people's ideas betrays your lack of critical thinking. No wonder Reap just stumps for you now, probably finds it a lot more mentally comfortable than trying to follow a complex thinker.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Reducing the size and scope of government is literally what I advocate for all the time, and what you advocate against. :lol You're the one who has "there should be a law..." as the go-to solution to every problem.


I've never advocated against reducing the size and scope of government. I advocate for effective solutions to prevent government overreach. Since hiding in a cave is not really an option, I suggest solutions that might actually work. You should try it sometime.



> This is a fantasy you have concocted. What did I not support that would stop government spying? This literally never happened. Of course I would support that. Why are you so dishonest?


In your own words, you say passing a law to stop the government from spying is giving more power to the government. It's not my fault you make illogical arguments. :shrug



> The internet is integral because of the quality of the private services that exist on it. Giving the government the power to control those services when the government only ever makes things worse is not a good idea. I wouldn't wanna do without AAA, I'd sooner shoot myself than have to deal with the DMV instead. Get the difference?


Yeah, it's really not that simple. The internet is not a convenience any more. Many people can't do their jobs or go to school or get insurance for their car or name any other of a thousand things that can't be done any more without the use of the internet. This is not something that is ever going to change. Every aspect of life is going to be eventually be connected to the internet in some way.

Every time you claim that laws preventing the government from spying on your internet activities is giving the government the power to control the internet (when it is precisely the exact opposite of what you claim), it sounds even stupider than the last time because you've had it explained to you and you still don't comprehend it.



> Dude I never said I was against the government passing a law to stop itself from spying (though any such law would be disregarded without consequence as they ALREADY do illegal shit they aren't supposed to do and nothing happens). I don't know why you're arguing against a point I literally never made or would make. We were talking about PRIVATE companies tracking the activity of people on their services. Don't talk about a short-circuit in my brain when you're just making shit up to argue against.


You've made the argument hundreds of times that you are against government regulations of all kinds. At least make an attempt to keep your bullshit straight. :lol

You're right about one thing though. The government violates the Constitution all the fucking time and they never pay any consequences for it. The trashing of the 4th amendment comes to mind. And this is precisely why the people need to stand up against government overreach to hold them accountable when they violate our rights.

There's a reason why the duopoly and their MSM propaganda arm work so diligently to keep the people divided. It's because the only real power we have against them is numbers.



> Individualism doesn't preclude voluntary cooperation for mutual gain. You oversimplify ideas based on their names because you don't read. You do the same thing with capitalism all the time. :lol "It's about profit no matter what!" No. Star Trek caricatures are not a sufficient means through which to understand an economic system.


I'm all for voluntary cooperation. You can't force the population to stand up to the government. If you can't convince them it's the right thing to do of their own free will, then you are no better than the authoritarians who are running things now.



CamillePunk said:


> What a ridiculous conflation. :lol There's an obvious difference between, say defending yourself against armed thugs trying to enforce the government's will against you, and just going out and trying to murder some woman giving a speech. The way you resort to such wild misrepresentations of other people's ideas betrays your lack of critical thinking. No wonder Reap just stumps for you now, probably finds it a lot more mentally comfortable than trying to follow a complex thinker.


This comment was tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Maybe it's you who needs to learn how to read if you believe the person who always promotes non-violent solutions to problems would actually suggest it's okay to shoot at government officials.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> What a ridiculous conflation. :lol There's an obvious difference between, say defending yourself against armed thugs trying to enforce the government's will against you, and just going out and trying to murder some woman giving a speech. The way you resort to such wild misrepresentations of other people's ideas betrays your lack of critical thinking. No wonder Reap just stumps for you now, probably finds it a lot more mentally comfortable than trying to follow a complex thinker.


Way to completely miss the context of what Tater said :mj4


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I've never advocated against reducing the size and scope of government. I advocate for effective solutions to prevent government overreach. Since hiding in a cave is not really an option, I suggest solutions that might actually work. You should try it sometime.


You advocate for expanding it which is the same thing. You just did so in this very thread. There's nothing cave-like about my worldview. I believe in people working together to solve problems, just not by force. 



> In your own words, you say passing a law to stop the government from spying is giving more power to the government. It's not my fault you make illogical arguments. :shrug


Show me these words. It never happened. We were talking about regulating private companies. I don't care what laws the government passes for itself because they won't abide by them anyway. But sure, I'd support such a law. Why not? Never said or implied otherwise. 



> Yeah, it's really not that simple. The internet is not a convenience any more. Many people can't do their jobs or go to school or get insurance for their car or name any other of a thousand things that can't be done any more without the use of the internet. This is not something that is ever going to change. Every aspect of life is going to be eventually be connected to the internet in some way.


They can use the internet, but they don't have to use specific services provided by private companies. The government shouldn't be allowed to tell those companies how to run their businesses. 



> Every time you claim that laws preventing the government from spying on your internet activities is giving the government the power to control the internet (when it is precisely the exact opposite of what you claim), it sounds even stupider than the last time because you've had it explained to you and you still don't comprehend it.


I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT LAWS CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL. 



> You've made the argument hundreds of times that you are against government regulations of all kinds. At least make an attempt to keep your bullshit straight. :lol


Regulating PRIVATE COMPANIES, not the government itself. Why can you not understand this very simple point? 



> You're right about one thing though. The government violates the Constitution all the fucking time and they never pay any consequences for it. The trashing of the 4th amendment comes to mind. And this is precisely why the people need to stand up against government overreach to hold them accountable when they violate our rights.


If it's willing to violate the constitution repeatedly why do you think it would follow any such law regulating its own behavior? Again, *I'm not against such laws which concern ONLY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF*, I just don't think they'd work.



> I'm all for voluntary cooperation. You can't force the population to stand up to the government. If you can't convince them it's the right thing to do of their own free will, then you are no better than the authoritarians who are running things now.


No you aren't. :lmao You want the government to regulate private companies. That's not voluntary at all. That's force. That's an expansion of state power. A lot of people advocate expanding state power, whatever, but don't act like that's not what you're doing. It literally is. 



> This comment was tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Maybe it's you who needs to learn how to read if you believe the person who always promotes non-violent solutions to problems would actually suggest it's okay to shoot at government officials.


I don't think you were promoting violence and never said or implied that. I think you conflated two different things to try and make a point, and it fell flat.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> ^^^Proof of the power of American exceptionalism propaganda.


This isn't an argument. It's a deflection.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Grew up in the ghetto amidst gang violence and rampant drug abuse (both in the neighborhood and my own family) with 4 siblings (I now have 3) and horribly irresponsible parents. Now have a degree and a high paying tech job and am able to take care of other people. 

Thank you "propaganda" I guess. I suppose I should've just advocated for communism and stewed about rich people all day instead of working hard to make something of myself.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> ^^^Proof of the power of American exceptionalism propaganda.


America isn't exceptional compared to the rest of the world?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Grew up in the ghetto amidst gang violence and rampant drug abuse (both in the neighborhood and my own family) with 4 siblings (I now have 3) and horribly irresponsible parents. Now have a degree and a high paying tech job and am able to take care of other people.
> 
> Thank you "propaganda" I guess. I suppose I should've just advocated for communism and stewed about rich people all day instead of working hard to make something of myself.


Kinda amazing coincidence how you and Deep have the exact same "grew up in the ghetto" story too. :mj

Cute.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Kinda amazing coincidence how you and Deep have the exact same "grew up in the ghetto" story too. :mj
> 
> Cute.


You're an awful person.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> You're an awful person.


Just observant. :mj


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> You advocate for expanding it which is the same thing. You just did so in this very thread. There's nothing cave-like about my worldview. I believe in people working together to solve problems, just not by force.


I've literally said decentralization hundreds of times in various threads on this forum. But no matter how many times I say we should decentralize federal power, for some reason you cannot seem to grasp it.



> Show me these words. It never happened.


You argue against regulations all the fucking time, even when those regulations are designed to limit the centralized power of corporations and/or the government. Digging up every example of this would be an exercise in pointlessness.



> We were talking about regulating private companies.


That's where the conversation started. Then I suggested that we pass laws preventing corporations from spying on us. Then you brought government spying into the conversation. Then the conversation evolved from there. These things happen.



> I don't care what laws the government passes for itself because they won't abide by them anyway. But sure, I'd support such a law. Why not? Never said or implied otherwise.


I believe this to be an important point. The government we have now, one that is a big centralized authoritarian government, doesn't give a fuck about the rule of law. I do not argue against you on this. 

But, and this is an important but, if power was decentralized and local people actually had a say over what rules governed them, then the government would have no choice to abide by the laws people want to protect them from government overreach.

Preventing the government from being too intrusive is not as simple as just passing a law. If that's all we did and we didn't create structural changes to how things work in this country, then you would be right, they wouldn't abide by it anyways.



> I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT LAWS CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.


Calm down, sunshine.

So you're now in favor of regulations that limit the power of the government. Fantastic. I'll put that down in the books.



> They can use the internet, but they don't have to use specific services provided by private companies. The government shouldn't be allowed to tell those companies how to run their businesses.
> 
> Regulating PRIVATE COMPANIES, not the government itself. Why can you not understand this very simple point?


When the government and massive corporations like Google and Amazon are in bed together, they are no longer simply "private companies" and to suggest otherwise shows an extreme ignorance of how things work in this country. You argue that the government shouldn't be able to tell those companies how to run their businesses but those businesses are telling the government how to run the government. Without breaking up that power dynamic, the two will always be mingled with each other.



> If it's willing to violate the constitution repeatedly why do you think it would follow any such law regulating its own behavior? Again, *I'm not against such laws which concern ONLY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF*, I just don't think they'd work.


I answered this above but I'll repeat it in case you didn't understand me. Passing a law alone is not good enough. The centralized power of the federal government must also be broken up.



> No you aren't. :lmao You want the government to regulate private companies. That's not voluntary at all. That's force. That's an expansion of state power. A lot of people advocate expanding state power, whatever, but don't act like that's not what you're doing. It literally is.


Already answered.



> I don't think you were promoting violence and never said or implied that. I think you conflated two different things to try and make a point, and it fell flat.


2A jackasses claim all the time that they need guns to overthrow the government if it becomes too authoritarian. They claim that the government we have now is too authoritarian. Republican politicians use this talking point all the time to rile up their base. _Obummer is gone take yer guns! Derp!_ Then when a Republican got shot, they were suddenly were singing a different tune.

It's amusing to me that Republicans will use this talking point to try to get votes but they don't actually want people using their guns in this fashion. Killing random citizens is perfectly fine as long as you don't do the thing they claim you need your guns for in the first place. 



Berzerker's Beard said:


> America isn't exceptional compared to the rest of the world?


The USA is the most exceptional killing machine compared to the rest of the world. I don't count that as a good thing.



CamillePunk said:


> Grew up in the ghetto amidst gang violence and rampant drug abuse (both in the neighborhood and my own family) with 4 siblings (I now have 3) and horribly irresponsible parents. Now have a degree and a high paying tech job and am able to take care of other people.
> 
> Thank you "propaganda" I guess. I suppose I should've just advocated for communism and stewed about rich people all day instead of working hard to make something of myself.


As long as we're sharing life stories...

I moved to Hawai'i on a one way ticket having never been here before, not knowing anybody, with a backpack full of clothes and 90 bucks in my wallet. There were nights in those early days when I had to crash on the beach because I had no place else to go. My first place was a tiny hostel room with 3 other people and my first job was a crappy low paying job at a liquor store. But I worked hard, got better jobs, got better places, now I have a nice condo I am paying down ownership on, I keep my bills paid and I am working on a college degree to continuing bettering myself. I earned what I have through my own hard work and determination, just like you.

Our anecdotal stories have no bearing on what life is like for most Americans though. For every success story of someone who worked hard and got that promotion, there are dozens of others who worked just as hard and didn't get the promotion through no fault of their own because there are only so many promotions to go around. Believe it or not, considering how much we argue, I have a certain amount of respect for you. My criticism is not of you personally. My criticism is of the system that has poverty built into it by design so certain people can hoard extraordinary amounts of wealth and power. When I criticize capitalism, I am not talking about the mom and pop store down the street. I am talking about the .0001% at the very top that uses their wealth and power to control the government and render so much of the population into lives of servitude with very little chance of ever escaping that life.

There's enough to go around that we can still have rich people who are well off without leaving others in poverty. I'm not a communist and I do not advocate for equality of outcome. I don't care if some people have more than others. What I do care about is when a tiny percentage of the population takes so much for themselves that millions of others are left without enough. That's why I advocate for decentralization. We're never going to solve what is wrong with the USA as long wealth and power remains centralized in the hands of so few people.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Kinda amazing coincidence how you and Deep have the exact same "grew up in the ghetto" story too. :mj
> 
> Cute.


It's very possible two people have similar upbringings in which they'd have shared Political outlooks. I mean it's why we have people who form groups based on personal experiences and ideals all the time.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The USA is the most exceptional killing machine compared to the rest of the world. I don't count that as a good thing.


.

Right I'm sure the world would be so much better off if only some other country besides the U.S. had all the bombs.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I've literally said decentralization hundreds of times in various threads on this forum. But no matter how many times I say we should decentralize federal power, for some reason you cannot seem to grasp it.


No, I do grasp it and agree with you, but then you advocate in other threads to give the federal government more power, such as with net neutrality and gun control. The problem is that you aren't consistent. 



> You argue against regulations all the fucking time, even when those regulations are designed to limit the centralized power of corporations and/or the government. Digging up every example of this would be an exercise in pointlessness.


I have never argued against the government regulating itself. 

The way to reduce the influence of corporations is to reduce the size and scope of government.

I've advocated that corporations shouldn't even exist in their present form, since they can only operate as they do because the government grants them special legal protections which allow for the corrupt interplay between them and the state without consequences. 



> That's where the conversation started. Then I suggested that we pass laws preventing corporations from spying on us. Then you brought government spying into the conversation. Then the conversation evolved from there. These things happen.


Yes, you wanted to expand the power of the state, I pointed out that the state itself is the biggest abuser. I never said let's not stop the state from abusing its power. I just don't want to give them even more power to abuse, unlike you. 



> But, and this is an important but, if power was decentralized and local people actually had a say over what rules governed them, then the government would have no choice to abide by the laws people want to protect them from government overreach.


This is how the American experiment began and then it slowly crept to where we are today. Do you think people today are more keen for decentralization and local government than they were in the 18th century? I wish, but no. It's a nice idea that we can just have a small state with local governance, and I do want to push things in that direction, but it's only going to boomerang back if people don't recognize the idea of a state itself as a flawed (and I would argue immoral) concept. Also, the demographic trends of this country brought about by the existence of a welfare state and a broken immigration system means we will only get more and more people who want a bigger federal government. 



> Preventing the government from being too intrusive is not as simple as just passing a law. If that's all we did and we didn't create structural changes to how things work in this country, then you would be right, they wouldn't abide by it anyways.


We're not on different sides when it comes to that I'm just pessimistic. 



> So you're now in favor of regulations that limit the power of the government. Fantastic. I'll put that down in the books.


Always have been and have never said anything to imply otherwise. You were conflating my statements about regulating private companies with regulating the government itself. 



> When the government and massive corporations like Google and Amazon are in bed together, they are no longer simply "private companies" and to suggest otherwise shows an extreme ignorance of how things work in this country. You argue that the government shouldn't be able to tell those companies how to run their businesses but those businesses are telling the government how to run the government. Without breaking up that power dynamic, the two will always be mingled with each other.


The way to break up that power dynamic, which is a problem, is to limit the power of the state so that those companies can't wield it as they do, not to empower the state even further and hope we get a bunch of virtuous people in there (who are in turn replaced by more virtuous people) who aren't going to do the bidding of corporations. It's a fantasy that that could be maintained. It's much more logical to just reduce the state itself. 




> I answered this above but I'll repeat it in case you didn't understand me. Passing a law alone is not good enough. The centralized power of the federal government must also be broken up.


Uhm yes I agree. I don't even want there to be a federal government. 



> 2A jackasses claim all the time that they need guns to overthrow the government if it becomes too authoritarian. They claim that the government we have now is too authoritarian. Republican politicians use this talking point all the time to rile up their base. _Obummer is gone take yer guns! Derp!_ Then when a Republican got shot, they were suddenly were singing a different tune.
> 
> It's amusing to me that Republicans will use this talking point to try to get votes but they don't actually want people using their guns in this fashion. Killing random citizens is perfectly fine as long as you don't do the thing they claim you need your guns for in the first place.


Was the Republican trying to impose gun control? Because if not, this point doesn't make any sense. You would have a point if they shot a pro-gun control Democrat instead.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Meh.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072890089787801600
imagine being so deep inside of a leftist echo chamber you think this is a good proposal, jesus christ I hate my state's government


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072890089787801600
> imagine being so deep inside of a leftist echo chamber you think this is a good proposal, jesus christ I hate my state's government


I propose we tax fuel so we can further fight climate change.

Maybe put up giant windmills everywhere, even if the local bird population becomes devastated by it, have to harm the environment to save it!

I say we tax all fast food, soda and restaurants.

Tax the rich, local business and big business, this will ensure we have money for poor people.

Lastly sign a pact to bring in more migrants, this will help fill the job void!


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Netflix should slap an extra charge on subscribers so that 'low income' residents could stream all their favorite movies and shows!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

yeah but cell phones are so integral to our way of life today that everyone who can afford one should be forced to pay for everyone else to have one too

it's only faaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Netflix should slap an extra charge on subscribers so that 'low income' residents could stream all their favorite movies and shows!


I like this!

Also if you have a car newer than 2010 that's brand name, you should have to provide free taxi service to the less fortunate.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> .
> 
> Right I'm sure the world would be so much better off if only some other country besides the U.S. had all the bombs.


Having all the bombs isn't the problem. How those bombs are used to war monger is the problem. Pretending to be the good guys because of some propagandistic notion of exceptionalism while killing millions of innocent people around the world in the name of empire *is the fucking problem*.



CamillePunk said:


> No, I do grasp it and agree with you, but then you advocate in other threads to give the federal government more power, such as with net neutrality and gun control. The problem is that you aren't consistent.


I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time differentiating between the people telling the government what laws they want to live under and the government enforcing laws that go against the will of the people. That is literally the opposite of one another.

I'll use net neutrality as an example since you brought it up. A large majority of people in the USA want NN. The reason they didn't get it is because the federal government has too much power and does the bidding of the ISPs instead of what the people want. Not only that but the feds are trying to overrule states who want to keep NN. In my idea of a decentralized system, the different people of the different regions would be able to make up their own minds on whether they want NN or not and it wouldn't be left up to corporate lackeys like Ajit Pai.



> I have never argued against the government regulating itself.


That may not have been clear due to your belligerent stubbornness against regulations of any kind but if I misunderstood you, I apologize. Good then. We're on the same page. Laws that limit the power of the feds is a good thing. We're in agreement.



> The way to reduce the influence of corporations is to reduce the size and scope of government.


I know you believe this but you're just wrong. You cannot expect to have corporations as big and as powerful as they are now and not have them use the government to advance their own agendas against the will of the people.



> I've advocated that corporations shouldn't even exist in their present form, since they can only operate as they do because the government grants them special legal protections which allow for the corrupt interplay between them and the state without consequences.


It's not the government giving them special protection. It's the corporations buying the government so the government gives them special protections. The only way to end this is to break up the power structure of both the government and the mega corporations. Only getting rid of one or the other will only lead us back to this same place.



> Yes, you wanted to expand the power of the state, I pointed out that the state itself is the biggest abuser. I never said let's not stop the state from abusing its power. I just don't want to give them even more power to abuse, unlike you.


Again, for like the hundredth time, I do not want to expand the power of the state. I believe in decentralized direct democracy. That's giving power to the people. The state can't abuse any power if more power lies in the hands of the people. If they try, then the people can stop them, unlike now, when we have no say whatsoever in how the government is run.



> This is how the American experiment began and then it slowly crept to where we are today. Do you think people today are more keen for decentralization and local government than they were in the 18th century? I wish, but no. It's a nice idea that we can just have a small state with local governance, and I do want to push things in that direction, but it's only going to boomerang back if people don't recognize the idea of a state itself as a flawed (and I would argue immoral) concept. Also, the demographic trends of this country brought about by the existence of a welfare state and a broken immigration system means we will only get more and more people who want a bigger federal government.


Well, then it's up to people like you and me to convince people that a strong centralized government is not the answer.



> We're not on different sides when it comes to that I'm just pessimistic.


So am I. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to bring people around to my way of thinking.



> Always have been and have never said anything to imply otherwise. You were conflating my statements about regulating private companies with regulating the government itself.


Wealth and power have been so concentrated these days and the government is so thoroughly bought and owned by oligarchs that regulating the mega corps and regulating the federal government is the same thing. The two are so intertwined these days that can't limit the power of one without limiting the power of the other.



> The way to break up that power dynamic, which is a problem, is to limit the power of the state so that those companies can't wield it as they do, not to empower the state even further and hope we get a bunch of virtuous people in there (who are in turn replaced by more virtuous people) who aren't going to do the bidding of corporations. It's a fantasy that that could be maintained. It's much more logical to just reduce the state itself.


As long as these super powerful mega corps exist, they will always find a way to use the state to protect their own interests. I hate to break it to ya but you can't leave that much power in the hands of a few people and not have them abuse that power.



> Uhm yes I agree. I don't even want there to be a federal government.


While I do believe we should have a much smaller federal government, I don't believe getting rid of it entirely is a good idea. Then there is no more USA, only 50 separate countries. It's a good thing to have a military to actually provide defense for the nation (obviously not the war mongering empire building it does now but actual defense of our borders). As long as it answers to the people instead of oligarchs and there are enough checks and balances in place to prevent the consolidation of power, then having a federal government for certain limited functions is not a bad thing.



> Was the Republican trying to impose gun control? Because if not, this point doesn't make any sense. You would have a point if they shot a pro-gun control Democrat instead.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/746022114042478592
The point makes perfect sense. Having guns to overthrow a tyrannical government is a well known talking point amongst the 2A crowd. Gun control isn't even something that could be called tyrannical, considering the lack of gun control we have in this country. I shouldn't have to explain to you that there are plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with guns that people would call tyrannical actions by the government.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time differentiating between the people telling the government what laws they want to live under and the government enforcing laws that go against the will of the people. That is literally the opposite of one another.


What is with this glorification of "the people"? For someone who cites George Carlin at the drop of a hat you don't seem to grasp that *most people are fucking dumb.* Worse than that, they're (especially) irrational and ignorant. They don't read. They aren't curious. They aren't self-critical. They don't debate ideas, they just spout gotcha talking points they saw "their side" say on the TV and vote for whatever is their immediate self-interest. Why on Earth do you think it's good or just that thoughtful people such as you and I should live under the laws that they think we should live under? It's a completely reprehensible idea to me. I'd rather live under the rule of a benevolent and intelligent dictator than under a democracy, if I had to choose between the two. Of course no benevolent person would aspire to dictatorship but nor will you find any benevolence in the will of "the people" so it's an equally fantastical proposition. :lol 



> I'll use net neutrality as an example since you brought it up. A large majority of people in the USA want NN. The reason they didn't get it is because the federal government has too much power and does the bidding of the ISPs instead of what the people want. Not only that but the feds are trying to overrule states who want to keep NN. In my idea of a decentralized system, the different people of the different regions would be able to make up their own minds on whether they want NN or not and it wouldn't be left up to corporate lackeys like Ajit Pai.


I agree it is better for each state to decide for themselves. I'll say that even though I don't think "Net Neutrality" is a good idea and I currently "have my way". I wonder if you would say the same if it was still federal policy though? 



> I know you believe this but you're just wrong. You cannot expect to have corporations as big and as powerful as they are now and not have them use the government to advance their own agendas against the will of the people.


Of course, just as "the people" use the government to advance their own agendas against the will of the other "the people". Everyone is going to use the government that way. I don't think it's any more just for the government to serve the biggest mob. Since when is the majority correct, wise, or virtuous? 



> It's not the government giving them special protection. It's the corporations buying the government so the government gives them special protections. The only way to end this is to break up the power structure of both the government and the mega corporations. Only getting rid of one or the other will only lead us back to this same place.


Either way, reduce the size of it and it's less of a problem for everyone. 



> I believe in decentralized direct democracy. That's giving power to the people. The state can't abuse any power if more power lies in the hands of the people. If they try, then the people can stop them, unlike now, when we have no say whatsoever in how the government is run.


We'll never agree. :lol The idea of direct democracy is so completely abhorrent to me. I respect competency, intelligence, and virtue. Those traits will never be found in the will of the majority, because the majority are not competent, intelligent, or virtuous. I probably sound harsh so in their defense I'll say that from the time they're born they are molded to be neither of these things by the state, and their state-educated parents. 



> Wealth and power have been so concentrated these days and the government is so thoroughly bought and owned by oligarchs that regulating the mega corps and regulating the federal government is the same thing. The two are so intertwined these days that can't limit the power of one without limiting the power of the other.


Wealth will always be concentrated because most people aren't smart or competent enough to do the things necessary to amass wealth for themselves.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Wealth will always be concentrated because most people aren't smart or competent enough to do the things necessary to amass wealth for themselves.


Kinda funny how you and the Mary Kay school of MLM cultism are very, very similar in their propaganda. 

:hmmm


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> What is with this glorification of "the people"? For someone who cites George Carlin at the drop of a hat you don't seem to grasp that *most people are fucking dumb.* Worse than that, they're (especially) irrational and ignorant. They don't read. They aren't curious. They aren't self-critical. They don't debate ideas, they just spout gotcha talking points they saw "their side" say on the TV and vote for whatever is their immediate self-interest. Why on Earth do you think it's good or just that thoughtful people such as you and I should live under the laws that they think we should live under? It's a completely reprehensible idea to me. I'd rather live under the rule of a benevolent and intelligent dictator than under a democracy, if I had to choose between the two. Of course no benevolent person would aspire to dictatorship but nor will you find any benevolence in the will of "the people" so it's an equally fantastical proposition. :lol


Hey, just because I believe people should have a say in how their society is governed doesn't mean I believe they will always make intelligent decisions.

I would point out however, that people are so used to not having any control that maybe, just maybe, if people were forced to take more responsibility for how society functions instead of pawning off that responsibility to a strong centralized government they can bitch about when things don't work out the way they want while not actually taking the steps needed to proactively change things for the better, it might raise the overall intelligence of the population.



> I agree it is better for each state to decide for themselves. I'll say that even though I don't think "Net Neutrality" is a good idea and I currently "have my way". I wonder if you would say the same if it was still federal policy though?


Hmm... it depends on the situation. I do believe that having a constitution that guarantees equal rights to all citizens in all states is a good thing. So, if Alabama voted to deny internet access to everyone who is not an evangelical Christian, the feds should have the right to stop them. I suppose as long as everyone is treated equally within the state then the state should be allowed to vote on whether or not they want NN. That's the difference between mob rule and a majority of citizens deciding policy. If NN gets voted down, then no one gets it and if it's voted up, then everyone gets it. No discrimination.



> Of course, just as "the people" use the government to advance their own agendas against the will of the other "the people". Everyone is going to use the government that way. I don't think it's any more just for the government to serve the biggest mob. Since when is the majority correct, wise, or virtuous?


I never said the majority is infallible and mob rule is not the same thing as a majority vote deciding policies.



> Either way, reduce the size of it and it's less of a problem for everyone.


Reduce the size of both and it's even less of a problem. 



> We'll never agree. :lol The idea of direct democracy is so completely abhorrent to me. I respect competency, intelligence, and virtue. Those traits will never be found in the will of the majority, because the majority are not competent, intelligent, or virtuous. I probably sound harsh so in their defense I'll say that from the time they're born they are molded to be neither of these things by the state, and their state-educated parents.


Indoctrination, as you know, is a powerful tool. If kids aren't taught from birth to be slaves to the state... if they were taught how to think critically instead of being taught what to think, society would look very different.

I don't really disagree with you that if we put your average American drones in charge now, it probably would not end up very well, at least not at first. There would be a harsh learning curve to say the least. But, as the old saying goes, you have to learn to crawl before you learn to walk. I still believe this would be the best approach in the long run but it would require teaching a whole lot of people to think for themselves.

Admittedly, it would not be an easy task.



> Wealth will always be concentrated because most people aren't smart or competent enough to do the things necessary to amass wealth for themselves.


As long as those at the top aren't able to amass so much that they can abuse their power and as long as they aren't allowed to take so much that it doesn't leave enough for everyone else, then I have no problem whatsoever with some people being richer than others.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I can't help but sense that I moved you there, Tater. :lol I'm left with nothing to argue with.

I guess we'll both have to wait and see if people wise up enough to accept either of our certainly infallible visions for society. :lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I can't help but sense that I moved you there, Tater. :lol I'm left with nothing to argue with.


Nah, you didn't move me. I just think you finally understand me better now. 



> I guess we'll both have to wait and see if people wise up enough to accept either of our certainly infallible visions for society. :lol


I don't have a lot of faith in the human species but never say never.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Conservatives: YOUR IDENTITY POLITICS IS ALL ABOUT VICTIM COMPLEXES. SJWOOOS ARE ALWAYS CRYING ABOUT OPPRESHUN!

Also Conservatives:










:mj4


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Conservatives: YOUR IDENTITY POLITICS IS ALL ABOUT VICTIM COMPLEXES. SJWOOOS ARE ALWAYS CRYING ABOUT OPPRESHUN!
> 
> Also Conservatives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <img src="http://imgur.com/7fvjvtR.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" />


Conservatives will always be desperate to pander to identity politics.

The fact they think they're worse off than gay people says it all. 

Fucking idiots.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> The fact they think they're worse off than gay people says it all.
> 
> Fucking idiots.


Conservatism and Christianity go hand in hand in America and therefore one of the sources of conservative persecution complex is indoctrinated through their religious beliefs. (This is true for even Jewish and Muslim conservatives).


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Having all the bombs isn't the problem. How those bombs are used to war monger is the problem. Pretending to be the good guys because of some propagandistic notion of exceptionalism while killing millions of innocent people around the world in the name of empire *is the fucking problem*


What _standard_ are you holding America to? What country throughout history do you think it should strive towards more like being? If America isn't the good guy then who is? 

It would be really great if you could answer these questions and not deflect by saying "war is bad".


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> What _standard_ are you holding America to?


I'm holding America to _*my*_ standard. The fuck if I care about anyone else's standards. These are my opinions and I think for myself, unlike certain other of American Exceptionalism's mindless drones.



> What country throughout history do you think it should strive towards more like being?


What other countries have done in the past has no bearing on what I believe the USA should be in the future.



> If America isn't the good guy then who is?


Not the USA, that's for damned sure. This country was founded by slave owners who committed genocide against Native Americans. It's history is full of robber barons and Jim Crow laws and mass incarceration and war mongering and colonialism and there are not enough hours in the day to cover all the atrocities committed by the USA in the name of empire.



> It would be really great if you could answer these questions and not deflect by saying "war is bad".


Whether or not war is bad depends on why war is being waged. War to defeat Nazis does not fall into the category of war is bad. It's not war is good either. It was more like, war was a necessary evil.

War mongering for profit and/or to steal the natural resources of another country, which accounts for pretty much every war that is going on right now, yeah... kinda falls under the category of war is bad.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I'm holding America to _*my*_ standard. The fuck if I care about anyone else's standards. These are my opinions and I think for myself, unlike certain other of American Exceptionalism's mindless drones.
> 
> What other countries have done in the past has no bearing on what I believe the USA should be in the future.
> 
> *No country throughout history has ever lived up to this standard though. Every country, especially every powerful country, has blood on it's hands.
> 
> So if America is not exceptional then no country has ever been exceptional. *
> 
> Not the USA, that's for damned sure. This country was founded by slave owners who committed genocide against Native Americans. It's history is full of robber barons and Jim Crow laws and mass incarceration and war mongering and colonialism and there are not enough hours in the day to cover all the atrocities committed by the USA in the name of empire.
> 
> *Again what country doesn't have a dark history?? The native americans were at war and slaughtering each other long before the europeans ever set foot. Africans had been dealing in slavery long before the white man. EVERY country used to deal in slavery.
> 
> You know America ABOLISHED slavery right? Seriously how much fucking longer are you going to talk about slavery? When will enough time have passed? 500 years? 1000 years? Guess what the people that populate your peaceful utopia in the future will ALSO have violence and slavery in their heritage. There's no escaping that.
> 
> Hey guess what Tater I heard your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather was a shitty person, guess that makes you a shitty person too.*
> 
> Whether or not war is bad depends on why war is being waged. War to defeat Nazis does not fall into the category of war is bad. It's not war is good either. It was more like, war was a necessary evil.
> 
> War mongering for profit and/or to steal the natural resources of another country, which accounts for pretty much every war that is going on right now, yeah... kinda falls under the category of war is bad.
> 
> *What country do you wish was in our place?
> 
> Also do you live in America?*


Bolded.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> No country throughout history has ever lived up to this standard though. Every country, especially every powerful country, has blood on it's hands.


I do not accept your logic. Because every other country is shitty, so it's okay that the USA is shitty too, does not fly in my book.



> So if America is not exceptional then no country has ever been exceptional.


I don't give a flying fuck if any other country has ever been exceptional. I don't live in any other country. I live in the USA. I care about what my country does and at no point in the history of the USA has it ever been exceptional.



> Again what country doesn't have a dark history?? The native americans were at war and slaughtering each other long before the europeans ever set foot. Africans had been dealing in slavery long before the white man. EVERY country used to deal in slavery.


Your whataboutism isn't winning you any points. 



> You know America ABOLISHED slavery right?


Tell that to the inmates in California who are fighting wildfires for a dollar an hour.



> Hey guess what Tater I heard your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather was a shitty person, guess that makes you a shitty person too.


Here's a nice strawman to go with your whataboutism.



> What country do you wish was in our place?


I wish to improve *my* country so it's one that doesn't kill innocent people for profit and global hegemony.



> Also do you live in America?


I live over the hills and far away.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

You claim America is the worst, most evil country in the world yet it's also your residence of choice? That's kind of odd to me.

It's also odd that there are more people aiming to immigrate to the U.S. than any other country in the world. If only they knew how terrible and 'unexceptional' it was.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The experience of living in America is exceptional. The history of its foreign policy is atrocious.


----------



## SexiestOfAllTime

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I find Eva Marie more talented than trump ever was in my opinion my hair have more charisma than trump ever has Who is with me on this cena is way way better than trump and I hate cena I would rather vote for Pile of poop for president than supporting trump


----------



## dele

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Conservatives: YOUR IDENTITY POLITICS IS ALL ABOUT VICTIM COMPLEXES. SJWOOOS ARE ALWAYS CRYING ABOUT OPPRESHUN!
> 
> Also Conservatives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :mj4


tbh American Anti-Gay conservatives are always the ones caught with a gay prostitute. The stinkier the berry, the sweeter the juice it seems.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> You claim America is the worst, most evil country in the world yet it's also your residence of choice? That's kind of odd to me.


You can't specifically respond to the points I am making, so you are left with strawmanning, whataboutism and outright lying about things I have not said. 

Sad!



> It's also odd that there are more people aiming to immigrate to the U.S. than any other country in the world. If only they knew how terrible and 'unexceptional' it was.


The USA has destroyed countless lives in Central and South America with CIA ops, coups, the drug war, etc., so I don't find it very surprising that people would want to escape the hell our foreign policy has turned their home countries into. I think it's a safe bet that there are people in Europe being overrun by refugees from the Middle East who are there thanks to the foreign policy of the USA who don't view us as very exceptional.

Just because I personally have had a good life living in the USA doesn't mean the country is exceptional. CP gets it.



CamillePunk said:


> The experience of living in America is exceptional. The history of its foreign policy is atrocious.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> You can't specifically respond to the points I am making, so you are left with strawmanning, whataboutism and outright lying about things I have not said.
> 
> Sad!
> 
> *I don't really know what your point is. You inferred the U.S. was the bad guy. So in order me to refute that point I would first need to know who you deem the good guy, but you refused to answer that question.
> 
> Otherwise all you're really saying is "Every country is bad and the world is bad and no one should ever take pride in their country and fuck America".*
> 
> The USA has destroyed countless lives in Central and South America with CIA ops, coups, the drug war, etc., so I don't find it very surprising that people would want to escape the hell our foreign policy has turned their home countries into. I think it's a safe bet that there are people in Europe being overrun by refugees from the Middle East who are there thanks to the foreign policy of the USA who don't view us as very exceptional.
> 
> *Right those places would be paradise if not for the evil U.S.
> 
> Oh wait they kill people and have corrupt governments too. *
> 
> Just because I personally have had a good life living in the USA doesn't mean the country is exceptional. CP gets it.
> 
> *Part of the reason you have a 'good life' in the U.S. is a result of it's foreign policy. It's very easy to shame your country on a message board while you willingly choose to live here and reap the benefits. I wonder what sacrifices you would be willing to make personally or economically if it meant helping other countries abroad.
> 
> Keep in mind you claim the U.S. isn't exceptional and yet you also can't name a single country you would rather live in. *


Bolded.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Bolded.


Why is US foreign policy one of the reasons life is so good over there?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

American standards of exceptionalism are pretty low tbh. I'm not surprised. Most Americans have never left their states let alone experience life abroad or seen other countries and cultures. All they know is through creative fiction (read propaganda) which is designed to portray America in the best light possible and therefore most of the times don't even know jack about other countries - let alone have anywhere close to an informed opinion on comparative differences with any degree of accuracy whatsoever.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> Why is US foreign policy one of the reasons life is so good over there?


The US has been on top for a long time so it must be doing something right.



Reaper said:


> American standards of exceptionalism are pretty low tbh. I'm not surprised. Most Americans have never left their states let alone experience life abroad or seen other countries and cultures. All they know is through creative fiction (read propaganda) which is designed to portray America in the best light possible and therefore most of the times don't even know jack about other countries - let alone have anywhere close to an informed opinion on comparative differences with any degree of accuracy whatsoever.


In your opinion why do you think more people wish to immigrate to the U.S.?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> In your opinion why do you think more people wish to immigrate to the U.S.?


Well, it depends on what type of immigrant you're talking about. You have several levels of migrants that "want" to come to "America". 

This is a very complex situation and while the right and left both oversimplify the reasons why Immigrants come here. 

Let me go on record as saying that the left's attitude towards immigrants is just as sickeningly annoying as the right but for different reasons. Reasons that I might include in my post as I share my thoughts. 

There are:

1. Economic Migrants
2. Relationship/based migrants (I fall in that category)
3. Chain Migration (which I personally think is absolutely unnecessary)
4. Refugees
5. Asylum Seekers

Within each category there are different migrants as well:

Economic Migrants:

1. Class Based - This includes migrants from different classes. You've got rich upper class which are your professionals. The richest migrant is actually the job creator. He's the person who starts a business here and stimulates the economy. This is the immigrant that the west really wants and he's the one that creates a brain drain on other countries - the ones that they literally leech off of. 

- Then you have the middle class (people who have a decent amount of savings in their home countries and come to America for various reasons like starting a business, finding a job). I would say that most of the middle class migrant is actually a very uninformed migrant. He's the one that migrates based on perception only that he's going to have a better life when in fact this migrant should stay in their home country and put that amount of hard work in their own country. MOST middle class people do not want to migrate btw. They stay home and work hard. Only a tiny fraction of the middle class actively seeks migration globally. And an even smaller fraction of that want to move to America. There is no giant wave of people who want to come to America. You can't just look at people coming to America and conclude that everyone wants to come here. That's an over-simplification.

Annually, there is only 6 million applications for immigration received by the USCIS ... 6 million is absolutely, hilariously low when you consider that the global population is over 7 billion. 6 million is less than half of the entire population of Karachi. It's hilarious that when such a low number of applications, Americans believe that "everyone wants to move to America". Even if you assume that this number has been constant for 10 years and 6 million different people have applied for immigration to America, then that's still only 60 million people who have indicated an interest in living in America over a decade!

It's actually kinda sadly narcissistic tbh. 

2. Future Benefits - These include Migrants who come to America thinking that their children will go to better schools and have access to the universities and therefore are trying to give their children the best opportunity they think that they can give them. This is perception based because a lot of migrants are actually very ignorant of the standard of American schools. A LOT of economic migrants that believe that their children will get better schooling in America are capable of affording better schools in their home countries. But there is a localized culture based around a belief that American schools are better so they take that leap of faith without doing the proper research

3. Poorest Class of Migrants - These are trade workers that come to America if they can to get any kind of a job so that they can send money back home since the power of the dollar raises their family's status back home. A lot of these migrants are now staying back in their home countries which are developing - so long as America and other western countries have not taken an active interest in decimating their local economies in favor of American corporations. 

---
We won't talk about the relationship based immigration because that is entirely based on love and marriage and all that. These migrants are while large in number the most likely group to assimilate. but these migrants are also not those who are coming to American by and large because America is better than their home country because the couple just picks the country of most convenience to the couple. To counter those who come to America, there are a lot of Americans that leave America in order to live with their loved on in their home-country. This is more of a trade off. 
--

The other three categories have people who are part of a larger group in the world that is escaping all kinds of terrible situations. In spite of what the American propaganda states about other countries, every single country in the world has a refugee program and they take in as many refugees as they can. America is not the #1 refugee taker. Most people don't even know this, but Pakistan for example has well over 12 million Afghani refugees currently living in Pakistan etc. Western countries tend to make a bigger deal of refugees than other countries from my perspective. India has 66 million refugees. Even Saudi Arabia despite American propaganda is host to at least 500k to 2.5 million Syrian refugees. The right wing of American media propaganda is fairly cancerous in its omission of global refugee statistics. 

Ok. Now that I've made this clear that there is not 1 type of immigrant, I'll give you the case of the most "common" type of immigrant which is the economic migrant that chooses America to come to. 

*Perception *- Western Societies including America have done a great job of branding themselves in the eyes of people. Basically what has happened is that while people live in countries where they see localized problems, they tend to view the west as the grass is greener on the other side. For many of them it's like a golden goose even if it actually a decline in quality of life for them. They tend to falsely believe that crime rates are lower (whereas when you look at crime rates, there are pockets of crime riddled societies in every country). When immigrants come to America, they get to choose which city they move to - when in fact, what many of these immigrants can and should do is look at the best places to live in their own countries and move there. But they think big. They think that if they're going to move, then might as well move to the country that appears the best in their eyes - and it's not an informed decision about what their future is actually going to be like. 

Take the example of Canada. They have a point based system, but their entire immigrant population is as a whole underpaid and underemployed. This is happening across the west. It's based entirely on perception and false promises made by western countries as well as immigration agencies (yes, in eastern countries you have actual groups of people who make a shit ton of money from immigrant hopefuls who are promised all sorts of fucking lies about the country they're being sold on). There are regular movements in Canada (fractured, but not without a voice) where immigrants constantly try to lobby against Canadian Migration and the myths and lies of their fucking retarded point system and its failure. The government does a great job of hiding their issues and burying immigrant concerns entirely. As long as they can get people in their tax net, I suppose it doesn't really matter if a Doctor comes to Canada and CANNOT work as a Doctor and an engineer comes to Canada and no one will hire them. 

Go look up notcanada.com and its history. 

Unfortunately, perception is not reality. Perception drives migration, but at the same time, unlike what people believe people aren't only flocking to Western Countries. There is nothing special about western countries. People falsely believe that everyone wants to come to America because they only look at people who do want to come to America. If you only look at those who want something, then you ignore those who don't and you create this impression that everyone wants to come to America. 

Most people who are well informed about the consequences of migration tend not to migrate.

PS. I hope you don't give me typical partisan responses after this because I've spent way more on this post than I thought would be worth my time originally.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The US has been on top for a long time so it must be doing something right.


I saw this post just now. What do you think the US has been on top of for a long time? The only metric that the US is on top of is its overall economy, but that means jack when it comes to standards of living of the individual - where it does not even hit the top 15. US barely scrapes into the top 20.

https://www.businessinsider.com/19-...o-the-social-progress-report-2016-6?r=UK&IR=T

Take a look at other social metrics like standard of education, healthcare, affordability etc etc and US is quite nicely placed at the bottom of the OECD countries.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I don't really know what your point is. You inferred the U.S. was the bad guy. So in order me to refute that point I would first need to know who you deem the good guy, but you refused to answer that question.


You need me to identify another country as "the good guys" to refute the point that killing innocent people for profit and global hegemony is evil?



> Otherwise all you're really saying is "Every country is bad and the world is bad and no one should ever take pride in their country and fuck America".


Are you capable of responding to criticisms of the USA without comparing it to other countries? 



> Right those places would be paradise if not for the evil U.S.
> 
> Oh wait they kill people and have corrupt governments too.
> 
> Part of the reason you have a 'good life' in the U.S. is a result of it's foreign policy. It's very easy to shame your country on a message board while you willingly choose to live here and reap the benefits. I wonder what sacrifices you would be willing to make personally or economically if it meant helping other countries abroad.


How has 85,000 dead kids in Yemen improved your life?



> Keep in mind you claim the U.S. isn't exceptional and yet you also can't name a single country you would rather live in.


This is you right now. I hope you know that.

"If you don't like our country then you can git out!"


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The government is not the nation. Don't identify with it or feel the need to justify its atrocities. They paid for it with money they took from us by force and didn't ask how it should be spent. Even the dumb stooges ("proud taxpayers") who think they consented don't understand they've been indoctrinated since before they could think to think they consent or can consent to it.


----------



## SexiestOfAllTime

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I am with the senate. War should be gone. I believe in peace, trump is putting America in a dangerous situation the Iraq war is bad enough, this is too far. Trump is becoming modern day hitler putting Latinos in cages is disgusting what trump done is far worse than what the Latino kids has done The sooner trump is impeach the trade war might be over


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> yeahbaby! said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is US foreign policy one of the reasons life is so good over there?
> 
> 
> 
> The US has been on top for a long time so it must be doing something right.
Click to expand...

Britain was on top for far longer, just like America now our foreign policies were a disgrace and the only lives that mattered were predominantly the white ones at home.

The fuck does being number one matter?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Kyle Kulinski and three complete morons discuss the progressive strategy for the next two years. Kyle lays out some great political strategy here to pass through things that Trump himself has supported in the past such as withdrawing from Afghanistan, draining the swamp, and releasing more non-violent drug offenders. I'd like to see all of these things pass and so would a lot of Trump supporters. 






Unfortunately the rest of the panel can't help but engage in identity politics and calling for idiotic policies that would hurt the poor such as a $15 minimum wage, which would of course make young people and poor people with no skills in most parts of the country completely incapable of competing in the labor market, and accelerate automation (which from my perspective wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would be bad for a lot of people).


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Kyle Kulinski and three complete morons discuss the progressive strategy for the next two years. Kyle lays out some great political strategy here to pass through things that Trump himself has supported in the past such as withdrawing from Afghanistan, draining the swamp, and releasing more non-violent drug offenders. I'd like to see all of these things pass and so would a lot of Trump supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the rest of the panel can't help but engage in identity politics and calling for idiotic policies that would hurt the poor such as a $15 minimum wage, which would of course make young people and poor people with no skills in most parts of the country completely incapable of competing in the labor market, and accelerate automation (which from my perspective wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would be bad for a lot of people).


This would be a lot better video if every part where Kyle wasn't speaking was edited out.


----------



## njcam

*‘Stop Lying!’ CNN’s Chris Cuomo FLATTENS Kellyanne Conway In Crazy Exchange About Her Lies*

After watching this, you really have to wonder about Kellyanne Conway's mental state.

There is either a mental health issue here, or Kellyanne Conway has no issue embarrassing herself on LIVE TV.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Britain was on top for far longer, just like America now our foreign policies were a disgrace and the only lives that mattered were predominantly the white ones at home.
> 
> The fuck does being number one matter?


On top of what? An empire is good for only a few and the serfs never saw its benefits. The industrial revolution and British empire happened during the same era of orphans roaming British streets and children starving to death etc. The Brits were looting India and none of that money was ever seen by its citizens. Charles Dickens was writing about dying children in London streets while the Brits were supposedly the richest nations in the world.

That is capitalism at its least regulated before the union / labor revolution era.

None of the western empires were ever good for their citizens.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It's funny. I hadn't thought about this since I was a kid. When I was very young growing up in the 80s, I had strange ideas about things, like you do as a kid. You don't know shit and things aren't explained in a way you can understand at times.

I genuinely thought that the U.S. was the only free country in the world. That was the message I seemed to get from media and hearing adults speak. Now this was obviously a misinterpretation, but I think it came form hearing things like "America is the freest country in the world" and similar things. All I really knew about foreign countries and policies was the Soviet Union and how oppressed they were.

I wonder if there were other kids that had similar misinterpretations, and if so, what effect that had on their views of the country and the world.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I wonder if there were other kids that had similar misinterpretations, and if so, what effect that had on their views of the country and the world.


Almost all Americans that I've spoken to in the South think like this. It's very strange to me. I was once asked by someone here "does Pakistan have banks?" ... That question says a lot. Then there are people who literally believe that only America has big cities and skyscrapers which they maybe extend a little towards Europe. But the impression of non white majority nations is that they are all living in poor conditions. The thing is that the west creates this impression through carefully selecting what images they show to their citizens. 

It's crafted over a period of years and decades. Hollywood movies when they show "Now in Arab" for example will almost always show the desert beduin tribes, but not the mega cities of Ryadh and Jeddah or UAE. Only now when they could no longer hide what UAE is like from Americans have they begrudgingly decided to show a little bit of it in their news. But they still won't show you the best structures of Karachi, Lahore, Calcutta, Dhaka etc. You have to do the research yourself and in most cases obviously the masses don't bother. 

For example, this is what Ryadh looks like today:










South America, Africa and much of the middle east gets similar treatment. They even do it with China as much as they can. Most Americans have no fucking clue what the rest of the world is really like and what life's like there at all. Most here don't even know how much better the other OECD countries are than America on most metrics. 

It's very, very easy to fool Americans with regards what the rest of the world is like and most are hopelessly ignorant because they don't bother leaving their Americanized bubbles.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> *The government is not the nation. Don't identify with it or feel the need to justify its atrocities.* They paid for it with money they took from us by force and didn't ask how it should be spent. Even the dumb stooges ("proud taxpayers") who think they consented don't understand they've been indoctrinated since before they could think to think they consent or can consent to it.


That's not how this conversation begain. Tater was not complaining about the government, he was complaining about the country. He was talking specifically about the economy and how the people in the U.S. should strike like in France.

I said life is great in America which is why no one is striking... and that's when he accused me of falling victim to the propaganda that is american exceptionalism. No one was talking about foreign policy in the slightest.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Kyle Kulinski and three complete morons discuss the progressive strategy for the next two years. Kyle lays out some great political strategy here to pass through things that Trump himself has supported in the past such as withdrawing from Afghanistan, draining the swamp, and releasing more non-violent drug offenders. I'd like to see all of these things pass and so would a lot of Trump supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the rest of the panel can't help but engage in identity politics and calling for idiotic policies that would hurt the poor such as a $15 minimum wage, which would of course make young people and poor people with no skills in most parts of the country completely incapable of competing in the labor market, and accelerate automation (which from my perspective wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would be bad for a lot of people).


Automation will be the next step for humanity, also to wake up people to the fact we don't need so many damn people. When automation comes it's going to be bad for a while, people and Nations have become used to the jobs they have, that when they lose those jobs they won't know what to do.

Can blame that on the elites though, creating population booms, declines and fucking with the system so they could create a class of wage slaves.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Automation will be the next step for humanity, also to wake up people to the fact we don't need so many damn people. When automation comes it's going to be bad for a while, people and Nations have become used to the jobs they have, that when they lose those jobs they won't know what to do.
> 
> Can blame that on the elites though, creating population booms, declines and fucking with the system so they could create a class of wage slaves.


Some fast food places are already testing automation like McDonald's.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> It's funny. I hadn't thought about this since I was a kid. When I was very young growing up in the 80s, I had strange ideas about things, like you do as a kid. You don't know shit and things aren't explained in a way you can understand at times.
> 
> I genuinely thought that the U.S. was the only free country in the world. That was the message I seemed to get from media and hearing adults speak. Now this was obviously a misinterpretation, but I think it came form hearing things like "America is the freest country in the world" and similar things. All I really knew about foreign countries and policies was the Soviet Union and how oppressed they were.
> 
> I wonder if there were other kids that had similar misinterpretations, and if so, what effect that had on their views of the country and the world.


You didn't misinterpret anything. Indoctrination into the belief of American exceptionalism is by design.



Reaper said:


> Almost all Americans that I've spoken to in the South think like this. It's very strange to me. I was once asked by someone here "does Pakistan have banks?" ... That question says a lot. Then there are people who literally believe that only America has big cities and skyscrapers which they maybe extend a little towards Europe. But the impression of non white majority nations is that they are all living in poor conditions. The thing is that the west creates this impression through carefully selecting what images they show to their citizens.
> 
> It's crafted over a period of years and decades. Hollywood movies when they show "Now in Arab" for example will almost always show the desert beduin tribes, but not the mega cities of Ryadh and Jeddah or UAE. Only now when they could no longer hide what UAE is like from Americans have they begrudgingly decided to show a little bit of it in their news. But they still won't show you the best structures of Karachi, Lahore, Calcutta, Dhaka etc. You have to do the research yourself and in most cases obviously the masses don't bother.
> 
> For example, this is what Ryadh looks like today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South America, Africa and much of the middle east gets similar treatment. They even do it with China as much as they can. Most Americans have no fucking clue what the rest of the world is really like and what life's like there at all. Most here don't even know how much better the other OECD countries are than America on most metrics.
> 
> It's very, very easy to fool Americans with regards what the rest of the world is like and most are hopelessly ignorant because they don't bother leaving their Americanized bubbles.


I remember reading a story one time about a doctor do-gooder who thought they were going to Africa to help starving kids with flies all over them like you see in the commercials and was so upset when they arrived in what was a very modern city that they went home. :lol



Berzerker's Beard said:


> That's not how this conversation begain. Tater was not complaining about the government, he was complaining about the country. He was talking specifically about the economy and how the people in the U.S. should strike like in France.
> 
> *I said life is great in America which is why no one is striking*... and that's when he accused me of falling victim to the propaganda that is american exceptionalism. No one was talking about foreign policy in the slightest.


Mariott says hi.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Mariott says hi.


They're striking against a single company, not the national government.

Surely you know that?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

We should raise awareness about all of these wonderful South American, African, and Asian countries so that all the immigrants and refugees stop wanting to come here instead. (Y)


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> We should raise awareness about all of these wonderful South American, African, and Asian countries so that all the immigrants and refugees stop wanting to come here instead. (Y)


You have a better chance of finding Wakanda.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Some fast food places are already testing automation like McDonald's.


I went to a McDonald's and talked to a really frustrated employee and she told me that management told her that if she doesn't train the customers to do her job then she's fired. 

They're not only automating jobs, but also retraining customers to do their jobs as well while the price of nothing comes down as profits continue to go up. 

But you see, it's the individual here that is poor and that poverty is a state of mind amongst poor people. 

However, the REAL poverty exists in the mind of the capitalist which is why he's always look for ways to cut costs and make more money, no matter how many people he needs to squash, hurt and even kill in order to do so.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I went to a McDonald's and talked to a really frustrated employee and she told me that management told her that if she doesn't train the customers to do her job then she's fired.
> 
> They're not only automating jobs, but also retraining customers to do their jobs as well while the price of nothing comes down as profits continue to go up.
> 
> But you see, it's the individual here that is poor and that poverty is a state of mind amongst poor people.
> 
> However, the REAL poverty exists in the mind of the capitalist which is why he's always look for ways to cut costs and make more money, no matter how many people he needs to squash, hurt and even kill in order to do so.


Technology has been putting people out of jobs for a long time bud. Know any swordsmiths?

Should we halt evolution and progress so that everyone can hold onto their job as long as they want?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> They're striking against a single company, not the national government.
> 
> Surely you know that?


Brainwashed drones who are deeply in debt and incapable of critical thinking are easier to control. Maybe all those people who are upset with GM _should_ be directing a little of that anger at the national government.



> *Guillotines and Red Octobers*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The French would be in the streets.
> 
> Of course, they are in the streets – but that’s in France. What about here? General Motors just announced it will be closing five plants and firing about 15,000 people – and that’s probably just for openers.
> 
> This, by itself, isn’t cause for pitchforks.
> 
> Companies sometimes have to lay people off – because sometimes, people aren’t buying what the company is selling. Even when this is the result of mismanagement, it’s a normal part of life in a free economy.
> 
> But GM used the government as its personal Luca Brasi to mulct taxpayers – including those people GM just fired – to the tune of $33 billion back in 2009 – so that those jobs would be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, at any rate, was the alleged basis for the bailout.
> 
> Now GM is cashing out – and that is cause for pitchforks.
> 
> The money that GM will save by not paying those 15,000 workers – and not building those cars – won’t be refunded to the taxpayers whose generous, at-bayonet-point “contributions” made it possible for GM to keep its doors open. The money will be pocketed by GM – including CEO Mary Barra, whose annual compensation package amounts to in excess of $21 million. She is the highest-paid CEO of any car company and heads a company that is losing market share, contracting its operations and firing its employees en masse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mary Barra isn’t even taking a pay cut.
> 
> She will probably give herself a raise – for making GM more “efficient” and giving it the “flexibility” to ” . . . increase the long-term profit and cash generation potential of the company.”
> 
> She means cash generation for herself and other executive class-insiders, of course.
> 
> Barra is also aggressively tub-thumping for more taxpayer bailouts – in the form of a continuation in perpetuity of the $7,500 per car federal tax subsidies given to float the “purchase” of otherwise unsaleable electric cars. These are set to expire at just the moment that GM (and not just GM) is ramping up production of these EVs almost no one wants – or at least, which almost no one would buy if they couldn’t offload some of the purchase cost onto the backs of someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barra and GM also insist that federal fuel economy mandates not only remain in force but be raised, per Barack Obama, to almost 50 miles-per-gallon by model year 2025.
> 
> In the name of “sustainable development” and “urban mobility” solutions – GM’s new catchphrase in China, where it sees a glorious future for itself – funded by plant closings and layoffs here.
> 
> At the same time, she says GM will “focus” on building trucks and SUVs – vehicles that stand as much chance of achieving 50 MPG as OJ Simpson has of beatification by the Pope in Rome. The latest GM truck – the 2019 Silverado 1500 series – actually gets worse mileage than the outgoing 2018 model. The V6 version’s mileage is down by about 3 MPG vs. the 2018 with the same engine; the 2019 V8’s mileage is down by 1 MPG.
> 
> And the 2019 Silverado’s new “efficient” 2.7 liter turbocharged four cylinder engine – the first use of a four cylinder engine in a full-size truck – averages a flaccid 21 MPG. Possibly because putting a four cylinder engine in a full-size truck is like expecting Danny DeVito to piggyback carry Arnold Schwarzenegger up a flight of stairs and not breath hard doing it.
> 
> The only way a full-size truck is ever going to average 50 MPG is down an elevator shaft – engine off, transmission in neutral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Barra is betting the house on a class of vehicles which cannot comply with the onerous regulations she champions. And most of the cars which stood a chance of surviving in a 50 MPG fatwa’d, small-carbon-footprint world have been cancelled, per Barra. What will GM fall back on when the Jenga tower collapses about five years from now?
> 
> Or sooner?
> 
> Barra and GM probably think they can sell trucks and SUVs with the cost of EVs folded into their prices – which will continue to rise like a Weimar Mark. The manufacture of lots of EVs will help with the CAFE math (one EV that uses no gas at all plus one SUV or truck that uses a lot of gas averages more than two SUVs or trucks that use a lot of gas) and government mandates and subsidies will help with the EV math.
> 
> Even if you don’t buy an EV – you’ll pay for one.
> 
> The whole hideous business is a textbook case of socialism for the rich – the (ahem) free market for everyone else; the impolite but accurate way to describe what most textbooks politely but far-from-accurately call a “mixed” economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Barra puts on her weight belt so as to not hurt her back hauling her $22 million from the Brinks truck, those 15,000 fired people and their families ( doubling if not tripling the number of people affected by this) will have to figure out how to pay the rent, the electric bill and feed their kids. Many will go on the dole – and who will pay for that?
> 
> Not GM.
> 
> Not Mary Barra.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mass firings were announced – without warning – the day after Thanksgiving and just in time for Christmas.
> 
> It’s the sort of thing that led in the past to guillotines and Red Octobers.
> 
> Will it lead to the same things here? Not unless Americans can be roused off their sofas and pulled away from their TVs and “the game.”
> 
> SOURCE


Life sure is great in the USA for all those people who had their jobs shipped overseas and all those taxpayers who were robbed at gunpoint to subsidize the entire venture.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Some fast food places are already testing automation like McDonald's.


One by my house has auto drink machines and makes the customer order at Kiosks, people bitched so much they had to open up one register. Used to be 5-6 employees at night now 3. Was told they want to reduce it to 2.

The GM layoffs? Seen that coming, would have happened if not for the Obama bailout, no matter what anyone thinks of the tariffs, those jobs were going to be lost at some point. 

Far cheaper to setup shop in Mexico.. though when full automation comes, they'll setup shop wherever they get the cheapest land.

My question is when automation comes and people are losing jobs and being replaced by machines or cheaper labor.. who the fuck are these companies going to sell to exactly? :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> who the fuck are these companies going to sell to exactly? :laugh:


Hypothetically there's no solution for full automation except UBI. It's the logical conclusion to late stage capitalism. 

Meaning ... _*taxes *_which the right wingers hate so much :lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> One by my house has auto drink machines and makes the customer order at Kiosks, people bitched so much they had to open up one register. Used to be 5-6 employees at night now 3. Was told they want to reduce it to 2.
> 
> The GM layoffs? Seen that coming, would have happened if not for the Obama bailout, no matter what anyone thinks of the tariffs, those jobs were going to be lost at some point.
> 
> Far cheaper to setup shop in Mexico.. though when full automation comes, they'll setup shop wherever they get the cheapest land.
> 
> My question is when automation comes and people are losing jobs and being replaced by machines or cheaper labor.. who the fuck are these companies going to sell to exactly? :laugh:





Reaper said:


> Hypothetically there's no solution for full automation except UBI. It's the logical conclusion to late stage capitalism.
> 
> Meaning ... _*taxes *_which the right wingers hate so much :lol


I always laugh when right wingers argue that higher wages will lead to faster automation, as if automation is something that can be stopped. A more honest argument would be, you should continue working for poverty wages as long as possible while we drag out the process of automation to save a dime for us while milking every bit of profit we can from you. The moment automation becomes cheaper than wage labor is always the moment when wage labor jobs disappear.

Some of my right wing friends *coughCPcough* don't want to deal with the fact that most forms of human labor will eventually become obsolete and it will bring about the collapse of capitalism, which cannot function without people working for wages to buy the things capitalism produces, but it's a foregone conclusion at this point. I say we speed up the process as much as possible instead of dragging it out while the bulk of wealth continues being funneled to the top.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

That just isn't an accurate description of my position at all but OK


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

What's happening at McDonald's is exactly the litmus test we are seeing with regards to what happens when automation is actually forced upon the customers and the employees.

Unfortunately, the MSM - the pretend "left" in America is totally ignoring the entire social mess it's creating. Obviously. I mean, if America actually had any real leftist media, we might actually see some corporate accountability ... But all we have to deal with is the center right and far right brainwashed tools.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> That just isn't an accurate description of my position at all but OK


:lol I know.

I do recall having seen you in the past speak positively about UBI.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

If you know then don't lie lmao hello

I want technology to move as fast as possible. I want to be an immortal cyborg who can spend all his time inside of a simulated reality (within our simulated reality) because the idea of necessities is obsolete. Exploring space would be cool too. Probably born too early though. :sad:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

American Exceptionalism: Where your children are orphaned by a cruel and callous state in meaningless wars. 










Good on Gary. But these children should have their own fathers and not have them cruelly taken away from them for nothing.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> American Exceptionalism: Where your children are orphaned by a cruel and callous state in meaningless wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good on Gary. But these children should have their own fathers and not have them cruelly taken away from them for nothing.


Agreed and good on him. 


Question: Did we really win the World Wars or did they even end?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> If you know then don't lie lmao hello


Not lying. Just teasing. 



> I want technology to move as fast as possible. I want to be an immortal cyborg who can spend all his time inside of a simulated reality (within our simulated reality) because the idea of necessities is obsolete. Exploring space would be cool too. Probably born too early though. :sad:


Yup. Me too.

But as long as we're on the topic of automation, please do clarify how you think we should deal with human labor becoming obsolete and how that jives with your ancap beliefs?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Not lying. Just teasing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Me too.
> 
> But as long as we're on the topic of automation, please do clarify how you think we should deal with human labor becoming obsolete and how that jives with your ancap beliefs?


I've dealt with it. I'm not a laborer.  

Good luck everybody else.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I've dealt with it. I'm not a laborer.
> 
> Good luck everybody else.


Oh come on, you can offer up a better answer than that.

Besides, you know perfectly well that you can't put that many people out into the streets and not expect them to come for those who have not been left behind.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Oh come on, you can offer up a better answer than that.
> 
> Besides, you know perfectly well that you can't put that many people out into the streets and not expect them to come for those who have not been left behind.


I look forward to the day when I can enjoy the juicy meat of the wealthy.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Oh come on, you can offer up a better answer than that.
> 
> Besides, you know perfectly well that you can't put that many people out into the streets and not expect them to come for those who have not been left behind.


I haven't put anyone anywhere. They can learn the skills just like I did. Automation is a slow-moving problem that everyone knows is coming. If they haven't done anything about it by now, that's on them.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

As long as AI arrives and takes over the world, I don't mind the automation


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I haven't put anyone anywhere. They can learn the skills just like I did. Automation is a slow-moving problem that everyone knows is coming. If they haven't done anything about it by now, that's on them.


Most people are fucking dumb is established canon in our conversations. Not everyone is smart enough to learn tech skills. There's also the fact that even if they were and they did, there's still only so many tech jobs to go around. Also, I think you're underestimating just how many non-labor jobs will be wiped out by AI. It's not just manual labor jobs that are going to be going the way of the dodo. A lot of the people who think their jobs are safe are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Can you just not dodge the question this time please? How do you believe wealth and resources should be distributed when there simply are not enough jobs to go around anymore?

I've got mine fuck everyone else is not an acceptable answer.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Hypothetically there's no solution for full automation except UBI. It's the logical conclusion to late stage capitalism.
> 
> Meaning ... _*taxes *_which the right wingers hate so much :lol


Yeah.. Let's not pretend like anyone likes taxes. I've yet to see anyone that does and when what was it, Denmark made it so you could pay more taxes on your own, they got a few thousand extra and those Northern European countries are actually Left leaning.

Besides who do we tax? The middle class will be gone. The companies will be in tax havens or in countries that benefit them. The Hollywood elite and the "Left"? They'll be living it up in some tax havens. 

So realistically who is going to be taxed but the already overtaxed? 

I said it before, those who can escape, will. It's why the elites don't fear another French Revolution, they can simply move. It's why the destructive elements that erode society don't care, they'll never be held accountable.

They'll just be virtue signaling on twitter from the Caymen Islands.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Most people are fucking dumb is established canon in our conversations. Not everyone is smart enough to learn tech skills. There's also the fact that even if they were and they did, there's still only so many tech jobs to go around. Also, I think you're underestimating just how many non-labor jobs will be wiped out by AI. It's not just manual labor jobs that are going to be going the way of the dodo. A lot of the people who think their jobs are safe are going to be in for a rude awakening.
> 
> Can you just not dodge the question this time please? How do you believe wealth and resources should be distributed when there simply are not enough jobs to go around anymore?
> 
> I've got mine fuck everyone else is not an acceptable answer.


I know a lot of dumb programmers with jobs, and a lot of companies who have open positions but can't find people to fill them, they'd literally take anybody who would just take the time to learn the basic skills. It's not as hard as you're making it out to be. A lot of tech jobs don't even require programming skills, you can be even dumber than a dumb programmer and have a good tech job. It's not an intelligence barrier, it's people either not believing they can do it or not wanting to go outside of their comfort zone. These are not viable reasons for me to sacrifice anything for strangers. 

I don't believe in deciding how other people's things should be distributed. People should get what they can earn, and give it to who they choose.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Wait what?!


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I know a lot of dumb programmers with jobs, and a lot of companies who have open positions but can't find people to fill them, they'd literally take anybody who would just take the time to learn the basic skills. It's not as hard as you're making it out to be. A lot of tech jobs don't even require programming skills, you can be even dumber than a dumb programmer and have a good tech job. It's not an intelligence barrier, it's people either not believing they can do it or not wanting to go outside of their comfort zone. These are not viable reasons for me to sacrifice anything for strangers.


And when all those dumb programmer jobs are being done by AI in the future, then what?



> I don't believe in deciding how other people's things should be distributed. People should get what they can earn, and give it to who they choose.


This ideology only functions when people can find jobs and earn money to buy what is produced. What is your answer for when there aren't enough jobs to go around anymore?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> And when all those dumb programmer jobs are being done by AI in the future, then what?
> 
> This ideology only functions when people can find jobs and earn money to buy what is produced. What is your answer for when there aren't enough jobs to go around anymore?


We're so far from understanding the human brain that this isn't a serious question. AI won't be on the same level as a human in any meaningful way for a very long time. Asking me what to do in THAT situation is ridiculous because so many things will be different. It's not something we even need to think about right now.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> We're so far from understanding the human brain that this isn't a serious question. *AI won't be on the same level as a human in any meaningful way for a very long time.* Asking me what to do in THAT situation is ridiculous because so many things will be different. It's not something we even need to think about right now.


or probably ever. AI is a product of the human brain. It's actually impossible to separate the intelligence contained in AI from the intelligence of the human brains that have designed it. In that sense, it is just an extension of human consciousness.

Machines will never take over all human ventures because humans will discover and pursue other ventures as they have done through every new technological revolution.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> We're so far from understanding the human brain that this isn't a serious question.


Understanding the human brain is irrelevant to this conversation.



> AI won't be on the same level as a human in any meaningful way for a very long time.


I'm going to start posting stuff about AI whenever I come across it to show you just how wrong you are about this. The people who actually know what they're talking about believe that AI within our lifetimes will be able to innovate in years what it would take humans hundreds of years to accomplish.



> Asking me what to do in THAT situation is ridiculous because so many things will be different. It's not something we even need to think about right now.


What's ridiculous is your refusal to answer a simple question. This can only go one of two ways and neither are answers you are willing to admit.

It's either...

A: let millions of people die starving in the streets

Or...

B: a system of distributing wealth and resources that comes from automation and AI

If you answer A, it makes you look like a sociopath. If you answer B... let's be honest, you are physically incapable of answering B, even though it is the only logical conclusion that anyone can come to that doesn't doom millions of people to die.

This is why I keep asking you this question and why you keep refusing to answer it. You *know* I'm right but you are too goddamned stubborn to admit it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Millions won't starve in our streets, nor will there be some violent uprising. This is typical collectivist fear-mongering to justify mass thievery with the kind of hypothetical doomsday scenarios you only ever actually see play out in communist/socialist countries.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Millions won't starve in our streets, nor will there be some violent uprising. This is typical collectivist fear-mongering to justify mass thievery with the kind of hypothetical doomsday scenarios you only ever actually see play out in communist/socialist countries.


When there aren't enough jobs to go around anymore, then how do you suggest people buy the things they need to survive then?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> When there aren't enough jobs to go around anymore, then how do you suggest people buy the things they need to survive then?


I don't fully accept the proposition that we'll be in that situation, but some combination of UBI supplanting our current broken welfare system in addition to more of the economic investment and charity that already exists. Believe it or not rich people aren't as heartless as you think that they'll let everyone else starve, and if you don't buy that then perhaps you'll buy that they aren't so stupid as to think it won't be a problem for them. If we get in that situation, anyway. 

Humans are good at solving slow-moving problems. Not most humans of course, but the smart ones with resources and ideas. I'll do what I can. I won't support mass theft though.

On that note, allow me to share a tweet from a socialist publication. :lol 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1073552422969270273


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't fully accept the proposition that we'll be in that situation, but some combination of UBI supplanting our current broken welfare system in addition to more of the economic investment and charity that already exists. Believe it or not rich people aren't as heartless as you think that they'll let everyone else starve, and if you don't buy that then perhaps you'll buy that they aren't so stupid as to think it won't be a problem for them. If we get in that situation, anyway.
> 
> Humans are good at solving slow-moving problems. Not most humans of course, but the smart ones with resources and ideas. I'll do what I can. I won't support mass theft though.


Ever since the Reagan revolution and the advent of automation, extreme amounts of wealth have been shifted to the top over the past 40 years or so. If you want to call that a slow moving problem, it's been moving slowly in the direction of fucking over the majority of people to benefit those at the very top.

I doubt most people would define that as solving the problem.

Now we're reaching a point where the jobs are going to be disappearing at an exponential rate. No amount of denial on your part will stop the inevitable.

I personally am in favor of local production centers owned by local people to produce what local people need using every bit of AI and automation that's invented to accomplish this goal. If the ownership of all technological advances continues being consolidated into fewer and fewer hands though, you're looking at very few jobs, even more extreme wealth concentration than we have now and the vast majority of the population dependent on a large centralized government. Maybe it's just me but that doesn't sound like an outcome that would be desirable to you.

You're seriously underestimating just how much this is going to disrupt the way our economy is constructed right now.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> When there aren't enough jobs to go around anymore, then how do you suggest people buy the things they need to survive then?


If technology has evolved to the point where we no longer need to rely on other people for goods and services, more than likely technology has also evolved to the point where every person would have equal access to resources.

If no one needs anyone for anything, then we are all in the same boat.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> If technology has evolved to the point where we no longer need to rely on other people for goods and services, more than likely technology has also evolved to the point where every person would have equal access to resources.
> 
> If no one needs anyone for anything, then we are all in the same boat.


One of the things that's always befuddled me concerning renewable energy... in regards to the common man, not the fossil fuel industry corporations... even if you don't accept the fact of climate change, why would you not want to build renewable energy infrastructure anyways, just for the simple fact that you wouldn't have to keep paying for your energy sources? It might cost more in the beginning but once it's built, you don't have to keep paying for wind and solar. That's one of the few things in this world that can't be bought. Everyone has equal access to the wind and the sun.

Of course, I know why the fossil fuel industry hates the idea but unless you're the person selling the energy to keep everything powered, I've never understood why you wouldn't want a free energy source.

This Republican mayor in Tennessee has the right idea.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Ever since the Reagan revolution and the advent of automation, extreme amounts of wealth have been shifted to the top over the past 40 years or so. If you want to call that a slow moving problem, it's been moving slowly in the direction of fucking over the majority of people to benefit those at the very top.
> 
> I doubt most people would define that as solving the problem.
> 
> Now we're reaching a point where the jobs are going to be disappearing at an exponential rate. No amount of denial on your part will stop the inevitable.
> 
> I personally am in favor of local production centers owned by local people to produce what local people need using every bit of AI and automation that's invented to accomplish this goal. If the ownership of all technological advances continues being consolidated into fewer and fewer hands though, you're looking at very few jobs, even more extreme wealth concentration than we have now and the vast majority of the population dependent on a large centralized government. Maybe it's just me but that doesn't sound like an outcome that would be desirable to you.
> 
> You're seriously underestimating just how much this is going to disrupt the way our economy is constructed right now.


It's gonna be OK. Silicon Valley will save everyone. So many great start-ups led by brilliant and wonderful people aimed at combating social issues. I'm excited for what the future holds, assuming the government doesn't get in the way. 

New Poll Shows Biden Dominating Dem Field For 2020

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39377/new-poll-shows-biden-dominating-dem-field-2020-hank-berrien



> Despite the hubbub that has been raised about the chances of Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, a new CNN poll acknowledges that although O’Rourke is in the top group of candidates, he is nowhere near the front-runner, former Vice-President Joe Biden.
> 
> The CNN poll, conducted by SSRS from December 6 through December 9, surveyed 1,015 adults. It found Biden garnering 30% of the vote, followed by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with 14% and O’Rourke following him with 9%. After O’Rourke, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) grabbed 5% of the vote; California Sen. Kamala Harris and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren both plunged five points since October and rest below 5%.
> 
> The poll found Sanders got 22% of the vote among those under age 45 and only 7% of the vote from voters age 45 and older. Although Rep. John Delaney of Maryland has announced his intention to run and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro stated he is forming an exploratory committee, neither even made it to 1%.
> 
> Warren is even underwater with the voters: 32% of voters saw her unfavorably, 30% favorably. CNN notes, “The poll finds 51% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say it would be better for the party if one strong candidate emerged early on as the clear front-runner for the nomination, while 41% said they'd prefer a number of strong candidates to compete for the nod.”
> 
> In 2015, 53% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said they preferred a number of strong candidates. 57% of voters identifying as Democrats want one strong candidate to come to the top quickly; 50% of independents want a bigger crop of candidates.
> 
> *On Tuesday, NBC News reported that a straw poll of MoveOn.org members favored O’Rourke over Biden, 15.6% to 14.9%. They were followed by Sanders at 13.1%.*
> 
> But Biden’s support remains strong; in early November, Reuters reported that a Reuters/Ipsos Election Day opinion poll found Biden the preferred candidate among Democrats; he received 29% of the votes, followed by Sanders with 22%, and then a virtual tie between Booker, Warren, and Harris. The poll found that in a hypothetical match with President Trump, Biden led 51%-39%, and Sanders, Booker and Harris would also defeat Trump in the popular vote.
> 
> Also in early November, The Washington Post conducted an exit poll asking Democrat voters whom they preferred to see as the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Biden got 32% of the vote; Sanders received 15% of the vote; Warren, Bloomberg and Harris got 10% of the vote. O’Rourke got 9% of the vote; Booker got 7% of the vote, and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper got 2% of the vote. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti was listed, but he received 0% of the vote.


Sounds like if progressives can't have Bernie, they're gonna want Beto. Perhaps we don't have enough information to say that right now though. Who else is running on a progressive platform (even if his voting record doesn't line up) that actually has national popularity though?

I know internet progressives (i.e ones who actually do research) think Beto is basically an undercover neoliberal, and they're probably right given his voting record, but as far as actually being able to win he is going to be able to bring together the neoliberal and progressive camps in the way that Clinton and certainly Biden can't. I think most progressives will support him, assuming Bernie doesn't run. Which he shouldn't. Dude's like 80 and seems it. :lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> It's gonna be OK. Silicon Valley will save everyone. So many great start-ups led by brilliant and wonderful people aimed at combating social issues. I'm excited for what the future holds, assuming the government doesn't get in the way.


"Silicon Valley will save everyone."

Because that has worked out so well up to this point...



> New Poll Shows Biden Dominating Dem Field For 2020
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/39377/new-poll-shows-biden-dominating-dem-field-2020-hank-berrien
> 
> Sounds like if progressives can't have Bernie, they're gonna want Beto. Perhaps we don't have enough information to say that right now though. Who else is running on a progressive platform (even if his voting record doesn't line up) that actually has national popularity though?
> 
> I know internet progressives (i.e ones who actually do research) think Beto is basically an undercover neoliberal, and they're probably right given his voting record, but as far as actually being able to win he is going to be able to bring together the neoliberal and progressive camps in the way that Clinton and certainly Biden can't. I think most progressives will support him, assuming Bernie doesn't run. Which he shouldn't. Dude's like 80 and seems it. :lol


You do realize this is Establishment propaganda from CNN, right?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> You do realize this is Establishment propaganda from CNN, right?


Feel free to share other polling data. The more the better.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Feel free to share other polling data. The more the better.


Answer the question.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Answer the question.


I wasn't aware MoveOn was establishment propaganda, no. I'll have to check them out further. They endorsed Bernie in 2016 so I figured they had some progressive credibility. 

Meanwhile at InfoWars:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1073689993800007681
Poor Gavin. :lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I wasn't aware MoveOn was establishment propaganda, no. I'll have to check them out further. They endorsed Bernie in 2016 so I figured they had some progressive credibility.


You cited CNN as a source. Shirley, you're not gullible enough to fall for their shtick.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> You cited CNN as a source. Shirley, you're not gullible enough to fall for their shtick.


No, the article I posted (which was not CNN, but Daily Wire) did. I bolded and responded to the MoveOn poll. The article also cited a Reuters poll.

Who do you think the Democrats top choices are if not Biden, Sanders, and Beto? Remember, most Democrats are not Kyle Kulinski.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The dems have painted themselves into a corner with identity politics. They absolutely, positively won't be able to run two white men on the ticket. 

In fact they might not even be able to run two white _people_. That's how bad it's gotten.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

No love for my Airplane! reference? unk3



CamillePunk said:


> No, the article I posted (which was not CNN, but Daily Wire) did. I bolded and responded to the MoveOn poll. The article also cited a Reuters poll.


It was a Daily Wire article citing a CNN article. It also cited a WaPo article. iper1

You can't seriously believe any legit poll would have Bernie getting only 22% of the 45 and under crowd. These are people who want a return to the Obama years and they see pushing Biden (or Beto) as their best chance at that.



> Who do you think the Democrats top choices are if not Biden, Sanders, and Beto? Remember, most Democrats are not Kyle Kulinski.


This isn't about who is or isn't the top choices. This is entirely about the MSM going full blast to take control of the narrative and reestablish the status quo. It also relates to all the censorship going on online to kill any anti-establishment narrative. It's all about controlling the flow of information in an attempt to shape people's opinion. The rise of Trump and Bernie was not supposed to happen and they are desperate to stop it from happening again.

I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this to you.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> No love for my Airplane! reference? unk3
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Daily Wire article citing a CNN article. It also cited a WaPo article. iper1
> 
> You can't seriously believe any legit poll would have Bernie getting only 22% of the 45 and under crowd. These are people who want a return to the Obama years and they see pushing Biden (or Beto) as their best chance at that.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about who is or isn't the top choices. This is entirely about the MSM going full blast to take control of the narrative and reestablish the status quo. It also relates to all the censorship going on online to kill any anti-establishment narrative. It's all about controlling the flow of information in an attempt to shape people's opinion. The rise of Trump and Bernie was not supposed to happen and they are desperate to stop it from happening again.
> 
> I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this to you.


Like I said, offer alternative polling data. Nobody is stopping you. I don't have to post only what you want me to post.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Like I said, offer alternative polling data. Nobody is stopping you. I don't have to post only what you want me to post.


Nah, that's okay. You go ahead and believe what you want. I'll be happy to laugh at you later.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Question: Did we really win the World Wars or did they even end?


My opinion is that we went towards an economic empire instead of a political/territorial one. The war changed from one that was blatantly about occupation and colonization to one of economic sanctions upon dissident states as well as forcing many countries into becoming producer nations for consumer nations (which is another form of territorialization). 

The colonial era ended with giving back territory, but continuing to maintain control over governments by toppling any government that went against the imperialist agenda, as well as suppressing countries where labor revolutions were happening with murderous regimes and dictators who destroyed those labor movements. 

Capitalism is extremely bloody. It's also an advanced stage of feudalism. 

It's just that people tend not to write about it in that light.


----------



## dele

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> American standards of exceptionalism are pretty low tbh. I'm not surprised.* Most Americans have never left their states let alone experience life abroad or seen other countries and cultures.* All they know is through creative fiction (read propaganda) which is designed to portray America in the best light possible and therefore most of the times don't even know jack about other countries - let alone have anywhere close to an informed opinion on comparative differences with any degree of accuracy whatsoever.


Bolded for emphasis. My mom's side of the family is from Central Iowa and most of them haven't left a 100 mile (maybe even 100 km) radius of their house. Yet they all believe they understand and can handle the eccentricities of international cultures and problems. Hell the last time we visited them, they referred to where I live (Cincinnati) as "out east."

Most Americans, even with the advent of the internet, are really dumb and prefer to live in echo chambers.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The US has been on top for a long time so it must be doing something right.
> 
> 
> 
> *In your opinion why do you think more people wish to immigrate to the U.S.?*


Because there's a large swath of land between either coast that you can move to and practically disappear. Why do you think that so many people in flyover country are getting so mad about brown people moving into their areas?

Also, try traveling to another "first world country" and tell me that they're worse than America. They're not.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Nah, that's okay. You go ahead and believe what you want. I'll be happy to laugh at you later.


Still haven't told me who the Dem frontrunners are in the early going if they aren't Biden, Sanders, and Beto. I'm not even invested in any of the candidates I'm just curious who they're gonna run. :lol You sure do like to be needlessly hostile and smug about any topic possible.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Still haven't told me who the Dem frontrunners are in the early going if they aren't Biden, Sanders, and Beto. I'm not even invested in any of the candidates I'm just curious who they're gonna run. :lol You sure do like to be needlessly hostile and smug about any topic possible.


Stop playing the victim. You're better than that.

You posted an article that cited CNN and WaPo as reliable sources and you expect me to take that seriously? You might as well have posted something from Breitbart. I would have considered it the same level of legit.

Bernie and Biden as front runners? Yeah, probably, but CNN trying to push the narrative that Biden has twice the support of Bernie is almost as laughable as Beto being in the same league as either.

There's also not a lot of point in debating front runners this far out. If the primary was 100% above board, Bernie would coast to an easy win. But we all know the Dems are going to do everything within their power to rig it again, so we're going to have to wait and see how this plays out. There's really no telling who all will be in it and who the Establishment decides to throw their support behind. Don't be shocked if they try to force Hillary on us again.

ETA:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1074107894449168385
:lmao Beto


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Stop playing the victim. You're better than that.
> 
> You posted an article that cited CNN and WaPo as reliable sources and you expect me to take that seriously? You might as well have posted something from Breitbart. I would have considered it the same level of legit.


You're fun to talk to.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> You're fun to talk to.


I know.

:crow


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I know @Tater will find this article from the New York Times somewhat vindicating. :mj

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-2020.html



> WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders met Wednesday night at her condominium in Washington to discuss their political intentions but did not reach any accord about coordinating their dueling presidential ambitions, according to two Democrats briefed on their discussion.
> 
> Only the two senators were present and they stated what has become abundantly clear: that they are both seriously considering seeking the Democratic nomination in 2020. But neither Ms. Warren nor Mr. Sanders sought support from the other or tried to dissuade the other from running, said the officials familiar with the meeting.
> 
> Ms. Warren sought the sit-down and did so as a courtesy and because they have a longstanding friendship that is rooted in candor, according to one Democrat close to the Massachusetts senator. Her office declined to comment about the meeting.
> 
> Mr. Sanders dismissed questions Thursday in the Capitol about the meeting, asking why a reporter was not asking about his successful push to have the Senate pass a symbolic resolution withdrawing United States support for Saudi Arabia’s military campaign in Yemen. And the Vermont senator flashed irritation when he was asked about it during an interview on MSNBC.
> 
> “I talk to Elizabeth Warren every single day,” he said, scolding the anchor, Andrea Mitchell, for inquiring about the meeting. “The fact that two senators get together to chat becomes a big deal, that’s a real problem for the media.”
> 
> But advisers to both senators made no efforts to play down the conversation, which comes as they move closer to making long-expected announcements that they plan on seeking the presidency.
> 
> Mr. Sanders has said he will “probably run” if he thinks he is the candidate with the best chance to defeat President Trump. Ms. Warren is expected to form an exploratory committee after the new year.
> 
> *Both senators, though, are confronting signs that they will not enjoy an easy path to the nomination.
> 
> Ms. Warren has been sharply criticized for her decision to release a DNA test in October proving that she has Native American heritage. And Mr. Sanders’s hold on the party’s progressive base may be slipping as a new generation of Democrats like Representative Beto O’Rourke demonstrate early strength in polls and straw polls, such as the one conducted this week by the liberal group MoveOn.*
> 
> The two would-be candidates have made their names as outspoken economic populists and are expected to run on similar platforms, with slight differences.
> 
> The prospect of two high-profile progressives pursuing White House runs has stirred concerns among some on the left that they could cut into each other’s support, potentially letting a less progressive candidate emerge with the nomination.
> 
> A handful of liberal lawmakers on Thursday downplayed that prospect, arguing that the center of gravity in the party had shifted inexorably left. But they acknowledged that if both senators run it could force the hand of Democrats who like each of them.
> 
> “When it comes to progressives, I think Bernie and Warren are in a different league,” said Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, noting that if each of them enter the race “I’ll have to decide.”
> 
> In 2016, many of Mr. Sanders’s backers bitterly complained about the Democratic establishment’s attempt to effectively crown Hillary Clinton as the nominee, making it difficult for Democrats to suggest that any potential candidate step aside or that there be any attempt at clearing the field.
> 
> “They both deserve to make up their own mind,’’ said Representative James McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts. “It would be wrong for any of us to say, ‘well you’re the better progressive.’ We can all make up our minds, that’s what primaries are for.”
> 
> Since the 2016 campaign ended, Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren, who have been friends since before either entered the Senate, have been running shadow campaigns that demonstrate both their similarities and their differences.
> 
> Advisers to each have gone to great lengths to downplay their nascent rivalry — highlighting Ms. Warren’s appearance on Mr. Sanders’s podcast, for example — but he was irritated by her refusal to endorse his presidential 2016 campaign and has bridled at questions about her.
> 
> Since running an unexpectedly competitive race against Mrs. Clinton, and becoming a global sensation on the political left, Mr. Sanders has exulted as the Democratic mainstream embraced central elements of his message, including his call for universal health care. But he has done little to broaden his political circle and has struggled to expand his appeal beyond his base of primarily white supporters.
> 
> Ms. Warren has, like Mr. Sanders, continued to present herself as a scourge of Wall Street greed. But she has worked aggressively to win over a wider range of supporters and has sought to draw a thinly veiled contrast between herself and her self-identified democratic socialist colleague by noting she is a proud capitalist.
> 
> She has also been aggressive in attempting to cultivate friendships in the party. Her session with Mr. Sanders was the latest, and perhaps most significant, of dozens of lunches and dinners she has had in Washington and Boston with party leaders, union officials and progressive activists in recent months.


Some interesting points:

1) The New York Times describes both Senators as facing issues, but then falsely frame Warren's issue as "oh she's getting criticized for PROVING HER NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE", which is of course a completely fake news interpretation of that saga to make Warren look good. :lol 

The issue Sanders face? The MoveOn poll that makes Beto look good, but you have to believe a lot of progressives aren't even sure the ancient Sanders is running and that would impact the results.

2) Throughout the article they try to portray Sanders as "irritable" about Warren, and describe his supporters are "bitterly complaining" about Clinton. After Trump's election there were a lot of people blaming "bitter Bernie supporters" for the loss. 

3) They try to say Warren and Sanders are in the same league as progressive candidates, which is a joke to me as someone who rarely ever heard Warren's name spoken when I lived in the thick of progressives during my time at university on one of the most liberal campuses in the country. 

4) They describe Bernie as mainly just appealing to white voters, and talk about Warren expanding her appeal. Jesus Christ are they serious? 

Blatant hit piece on Bernie and a sad attempt to prop up Elizabeth Warren who has completely tanked her already-slim chances with the DNA test episode. Elizabeth Warren isn't exciting. She isn't charismatic. She has issues with her voting record. She's proven herself to be a political dullard. Stop trying to make her a thing, establishment left-wing media. Or keep doing it. I hope you succeed. Trump would eat her as a light snack.

Expect to see a lot more of this as we get closer to the election, with Beto being added more into the mix as time goes on and it becomes clear Warren will not be a contender.

Of course where Tater and I disagree is whether or not this ploy by them will work. :mj I think it will, just not for Warren. She's too far deep in the hole.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I know @Tater will find this article from the New York Times somewhat vindicating. :mj
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-2020.html
> 
> Some interesting points:
> 
> 1) The New York Times describes both Senators as facing issues, but then falsely frame Warren's issue as "oh she's getting criticized for PROVING HER NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE", which is of course a completely fake news interpretation of that saga to make Warren look good. :lol
> 
> The issue Sanders face? The MoveOn poll that makes Beto look good, but you have to believe a lot of progressives aren't even sure the ancient Sanders is running and that would impact the results.
> 
> 2) Throughout the article they try to portray Sanders as "irritable" about Warren, and describe his supporters are "bitterly complaining" about Clinton. After Trump's election there were a lot of people blaming "bitter Bernie supporters" for the loss.
> 
> 3) They try to say Warren and Sanders are in the same league as progressive candidates, which is a joke to me as someone who rarely ever heard Warren's name spoken when I lived in the thick of progressives during my time at university on one of the most liberal campuses in the country.
> 
> 4) They describe Bernie as mainly just appealing to white voters, and talk about Warren expanding her appeal. Jesus Christ are they serious?
> 
> Blatant hit piece on Bernie and a sad attempt to prop up Elizabeth Warren who has completely tanked her already-slim chances with the DNA test episode. Elizabeth Warren isn't exciting. She isn't charismatic. She has issues with her voting record. She's proven herself to be a political dullard. Stop trying to make her a thing, establishment left-wing media. Or keep doing it. I hope you succeed. Trump would eat her as a light snack.
> 
> Expect to see a lot more of this as we get closer to the election, with Beto being added more into the mix as time goes on and it becomes clear Warren will not be a contender.
> 
> Of course where Tater and I disagree is whether or not this ploy by them will work. :mj I think it will, just not for Warren. She's too far deep in the hole.


Actually, yeah, kinda feel a little bit vindicated and I'm happy that you can see through the entire bullshit narrative being pushed here. Good job, buddy.

I laughed especially hard at this line: "But (Bernie) has done little to broaden his political circle and has struggled to expand his appeal beyond his base of primarily white supporters."

Literally every single poll I have seen on this topic over the past couple of years shows Bernie's highest support coming from women and poc and his lowest from white people, yet the Establishment is still trying to push the white sexist Bernie Bros narrative because they know they can't attack him on his policies, which has overwhelming support from the base.

Warren's only good quality is being strong on the banks but I don't trust her on any other issues at all and I'd never vote for because she voted in favor of increasing the war budget. IIRC, the only ones who didn't were Bernie and a handful of principled anti-war Republicans. I don't hate Liz but I hope she stays far, far away from the primaries. 

And as far as Beto goes... besides voting to deregulate Wall Street and the banks while in Congress, he isn't even willing to call himself a progressive. He's been getting ripped to shreds by all the left leaning outlets I pay attention to. What little support the MSM is propping him as having won't last as more about him comes out.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/4WNC3eWdZuU


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Fuck yah.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Stop playing the victim. You're better than that.
> 
> You posted an article that cited CNN and WaPo as reliable sources and you expect me to take that seriously? You might as well have posted something from Breitbart. I would have considered it the same level of legit.
> 
> Bernie and Biden as front runners? Yeah, probably, but CNN trying to push the narrative that Biden has twice the support of Bernie is almost as laughable as Beto being in the same league as either.
> 
> There's also not a lot of point in debating front runners this far out. If the primary was 100% above board, Bernie would coast to an easy win. But we all know the Dems are going to do everything within their power to rig it again, so we're going to have to wait and see how this plays out. There's really no telling who all will be in it and who the Establishment decides to throw their support behind. Don't be shocked if they try to force Hillary on us again.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1074107894449168385
> :lmao Beto


Bernie is the easy front-runner as much as the establishment media and Dems want to ignore that. If the dems want to go with someone new to run, and actually have a real shot, go with Tulsi Gabbard. She would be great and would trounce the Republican president in 2020.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Tulsi can't beat the establishment Democrats.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Tulsi can't beat the establishment Democrats.


Says who?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Tulsi has no chance of winning the nomination. The establishment wing of the party hate her even more than Bernie for daring to travel to Syria and talk to Assad about the Syrian civil war.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1074696496539406336
Oh no, Idris Elba said something indefensibly stupid. :sad: Nevermind on having him be James Bond then. :side:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Says who?


Anyone who knows just how powerful the establishment neoconservatives are.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Anyone who knows just how powerful the establishment neoconservatives are.


So no facts or evidence just conjecture. Got it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So no facts or evidence just conjecture. Got it.


Well yeah. It was conjecture. At least you knew what it was. 


---


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Who do you think the Democrats top choices are if not Biden, Sanders, and Beto?


Maxine Waters, Elizabeth Warren, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Tulsi can't beat the establishment democrats in 2020.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Tulsi Gabbard is a gorgeous, virtuous goddess and I would get in on the ground floor of a religion centered around worshiping her.


----------



## Draykorinee

:bunk


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Yup


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Maxine Waters, Elizabeth Warren, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Cortez isn't even old enough to run.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'm in love with Tulsi too. That face :banderas


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075564866126004229
:mj


----------



## Draykorinee

Anonymous sourcing is bullshit when you're writing hit pieces, she's not wrong and neither was anyone else who said it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> *Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics*
> 
> As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.
> 
> The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.
> 
> The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.
> 
> “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says.
> 
> Mr. Morgan said in an interview that the Russian botnet ruse “does not ring a bell,” adding that others had worked on the effort and had written the report. He said he saw the project as “a small experiment” designed to explore how certain online tactics worked, not to affect the election.
> 
> Mr. Morgan said he could not account for the claims in the report that the project sought to “enrage and energize Democrats” and “depress turnout” among Republicans, partly by emphasizing accusations that Mr. Moore had pursued teenage girls when he was a prosecutor in his 30s.
> 
> “The research project was intended to help us understand how these kind of campaigns operated,” said Mr. Morgan. “We thought it was useful to work in the context of a real election but design it to have almost no impact.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html


lol The denial and downplaying is quite amusing in the article. No doubt that if the shoe was on the other foot, this would be a much larger news story. I find it quite funny how they only "tried" it to see if it would work or not, then subsequently downplay it after they won for the first time in a quarter of a century in Alabama :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075802245298569217
Agreed! Taxation is theft and only the indoctrinated or the evil can believe otherwise.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075802245298569217
> Agreed! Taxation is theft and only the indoctrinated or the evil can believe otherwise. <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smilie" class="inlineimg" />


Got to carry on the gimmick I see.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075802245298569217
> Agreed! Taxation is theft and only the indoctrinated or the evil can believe otherwise.


Always love your hypocrisy on this. You claim you are against handouts yet you are against taxes which pays for things like roads, bridges, public schools etc. So you just want those kinds of benefits for free without paying for them.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Always love your hypocrisy on this. You claim you are against handouts yet you are against taxes which pays for things like roads, bridges, public schools etc. So you just want those kinds of benefits for free without paying for them.


Income tax and property tax are 2 different things and pay for different things, which you don't seem to understand. Also, you criticizing someone for wanting "free stuff" while ignoring your entire stance on politics is quite amusing :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Income tax and property tax are 2 different things and pay for different things, which you don't seem to understand. Also, you criticizing someone for wanting "free stuff" while ignoring your entire stance on politics is quite amusing :lol


Your taxes go to pay for things like roads, police, fire, schools etc, that is not property tax. that is not property tax. Nice try. Plus he said all taxation is theft, so even property tax would fall under that, since its forced. 

As for my stance on politics, UM medicare for all is paid for by taxes, so it's not free. So wrong again. its always weird when people like you talk about so-called free stuff yet taxes are what is paying for them


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your taxes go to pay for things like roads, police, fire, schools etc, that is not property tax. that is not property tax. Nice try. Plus he said all taxation is theft, so even property tax would fall under that, since its forced.
> 
> As for my stance on politics, UM medicare for all is paid for by taxes, so it's not free. So wrong again. its always weird when people like you talk about so-called free stuff yet taxes are what is paying for them


Yes, property taxes do pay for road maintenance ,fire fighters , police and schooling. This is all common knowledge, I'm unsure how you don't know this. There are plenty forms of taxation that is out right theft like the death tax, income tax and gambling tax. It's all blatantly stolen money from its citizens. I've only heard of people say that income tax is theft,either way, that's still a truth. 

Also, the Democrats literally run on "free healthcare" and they've started to try to run on "free college" as well :lol . Not to mention you've shown support for universal basic income, which is also billed as "free money" for everyone. To people like you , everyone should get "free everything", price be damned


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Yes, property taxes do pay for road maintenance ,fire fighters , police and schooling. This is all common knowledge, I'm unsure how you don't know this. There are plenty forms of taxation that is out right theft like the death tax, income tax and gambling tax. It's all blatantly stolen money from its citizens. I've only heard of people say that income tax is theft,either way, that's still a truth.
> 
> Also, the Democrats literally run on "free healthcare" and they've started to try to run on "free college" as well :lol . Not to mention you've shown support for universal basic income, which is also billed as "free money" for everyone. To people like you , everyone should get "free everything", price be damned


Tax is tax, it's funny you are still going on about semantics. But I guess facts are not facts in your world. 

It's just weird you are trying to focus on one form on tax.

And free college and healthcare are paid for how? By some taxes, like for free college would be a tax on wall street transactions, but of course, you will ignore that. So it's not technically free. They just say free because it's not a direct payment like it is now with healthcare or college.

ITs common knowledge, not sure why you don't know this


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

All forms of tax are theft. None of it is consensual. If you can't say no it's theft, just like with rape. The relationship between government and citizen is the ultimate power dynamic.

This is fact. You can't argue it away. You either accept theft or you don't. Wishing it away with different terms won't work.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Tax isn't theft if you get stuff for your money.

Thieves take the benefit of your stuff for themselves.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Tax is tax, it's funny you are still going on about semantics. But I guess facts are not facts in your world.
> 
> It's just weird you are trying to focus on one form on tax.
> 
> And free college and healthcare are paid for how? By some taxes, like for free college would be a tax on wall street transactions, but of course, you will ignore that. So it's not technically free. They just say free because it's not a direct payment like it is now with healthcare or college.
> 
> ITs common knowledge, not sure why you don't know this


What I said about property tax was factual. Yet some how, I'm the one who lives in their own world where "facts are not facts"?Nice attempt at side stepping though :lol . All I said was what property tax pays for after you tried to deny it. I'm not so sure what's hard to grasp about me focusing on one form of taxation. 

"Free college" and "free healthcare" are billed specifically as "free" for a reason. There's a reason why most supporters typically try to avoid talking about how these things get paid for, because guess what? It isn't actually "free". That's my point. You can't promote something as being "free" when it isn't. I'm criticizing you for supporting "free stuff" while getting offended at the idea of someone else wanting "free stuff" despite them wanting to pay for those services in other ways willingly. It's not just blatant hypocrisy, you blatantly tried to misrepresent what someone said. And your belief is kind of worse because you'd rather *force* people to pay for stuff they don't want to pay for, (like you know...other peoples college education) instead of people willingly paying for the services they do want. To you, taking by force is better than taking by free will. That's kind of a problem


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Tax isn't theft if you get stuff for your money.
> 
> Thieves take the benefit of your stuff for themselves.


Factually incorrect. You can't just take someone's money just because you give them something in return they didn't ask for (and had no ability to decline). The fact people think this is somehow acceptable is proof of the indoctrination. You would never accept that arrangement from another private individual. Some random dude on the street just grabs your wallet but hands you a paper cup and you're like "Well at least he didn't steal from me! :nerd:" No. Stop.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I don't think all taxes are evil. Obviously there are public utilities and services that require funding. But those things make up a very tiny percentage of of the overall tax burden. 

*Ideally* I think 10%-15% from everyone would be enough to keep the machine going, but I know that's not practical at this point in time.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Just because something needs funding doesn't make theft not theft. I need to eat. Doesn't mean I can steal money for food from people without being a thief.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/21/679065534/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-undergoes-surgery-for-lung-cancer



> *Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Undergoes Surgery For Lung Cancer*
> 
> This is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's third bout with cancer. In 1999, she was treated for colorectal cancer; in 2009, it was pancreatic cancer.
> 
> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery Friday for early stage lung cancer, a Supreme Court spokesperson tells NPR. Doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering hospital in New York performed a lobectomy, removing one of the five lobes of the lung.
> 
> Short of complications in recovery, doctors say prospects look good for a full recovery for Ginsburg, 85. She hopes to be back on the court for the start of the next argument session in early January.
> 
> The cancer was discovered after Ginsburg fell, fracturing several ribs in November. In taking CT scans of her ribs, doctors noticed an abnormality in one lobe of the lung. Subsequent biopsies and other initial tests revealed two non-small cell cancerous lesions, with no lymph node involvement detectable.
> 
> According to a pres release from the Supreme Court:
> 
> 
> 
> "According to the thoracic surgeon Valerie Rusch, both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation. Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease. Scans performed before surgery indicated no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. Currently, no further treatment is planned. Justice Ginsburg is resting comfortably and is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days."
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Douglas Mathisen, chairman of thoracic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, said that recovery from such an operation typically ranges from two to four days in the hospital, with the patient able to go home, do desk work and make calls within a week. That assumes that the operation goes smoothly and that there are no complications.
> 
> Mathisen said, "These days we are seeing more and more patients in their 70s and 80s make relatively quick recoveries, because we are detecting so many more lung cancers at early stages" when treatment is far more effective and successful.
> 
> Removal of a lobe is considered "the gold standard" in treatment, and while it means a loss of 15 to 20 percent of the lung, it "can recover," he said, with the other four lobes taking over some of the lost function.
> 
> Mathisen and other thoracic surgeons said Justice Ginsburg's prognosis ultimately will depend on the pathology findings, which will not be available until days after the surgery. If there is no lymph node involvement, surgeons contacted by NPR said the prognosis for being cancer-free at five years out is 80 percent.
> 
> Lymph node involvement would drop those odds down to 50 to 55 percent, Mathisen said. Dr. Cameron Wright, also an Massachusetts General thoracic surgeon and a Harvard Medical School professor of surgery, put the odds lower, at 40 percent, if there is lymph node involvement.
> 
> Rusch, who performed the surgery at Sloan Kettering, is a world-renowned lung surgeon. The American College of Surgeons this year selected her for its highest honor, the Distinguished Service Award. Rusch uses a robot and video cameras to perform operations.
> 
> This and other new methods of thoracic surgery are minimally invasive and use only small incisions. But serious complications from the surgery range from 5 to 10 percent, Wright said. And the mortality rate of the surgery is 1 in 100.
> *
> Third bout with cancer*
> 
> This is Justice Ginsburg's third bout with cancer. In 1999, she was treated for colorectal cancer; in 2009, it was pancreatic cancer and, now, lung cancer. During her 25 years on the court, though, she has never missed a day of oral argument.
> 
> News of Ginsburg's latest bout with cancer is yet another blow to the Supreme Court's liberals, now outnumbered 5-4 on the nation's highest court.
> 
> Ginsburg has become something of a feminist cultural icon and defies the image of the angry feminist. She is both decorous and determined and makes it a point not to "waste energy" on emotional reactions.
> 
> She has become the leading liberal voice on the Supreme Court, and even if she recovers fully from this latest bout with cancer, she likely will be "playing hurt" for a while. That is something she has done for years, powering through even the death of her beloved husband of 56 years in 2010. But she is 85, and there is no way of sugarcoating that fact — even though her mind remains sharp as a tack.
> 
> Indeed, last week, even as she was secretly undergoing a series of tests and consulting an array of doctors, she made multiple public appearances and was interviewed in front of audiences three times, at one point reciting from memory the words of several arias from an opera about her famous friendship and legal dueling with the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
> 
> Should Ginsburg's health falter further, President Trump could see a third opportunity to fill a seat on the Supreme Court.
> 
> After Justice Anthony Kennedy, a centrist conservative, announced his retirement earlier this year, Trump picked conservative Brett Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy. After two contentious sets of hearings, including one involving charges of sexual assault that Kavanaugh denied, he was confirmed on a close vote.
> 
> In early 2017, the GOP-controlled Senate changed the rules to allow a simple majority to confirm a Supreme Court justice, which paved the way for Trump's first pick to the court, conservative Neil Gorsuch.
> 
> A year prior, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took the unprecedented step of blocking President Barack Obama's nominee to the court, Merrick Garland, for nearly a year after conservative Scalia died in February 2016.
Click to expand...

Seems weird to say, but it was good luck she fell and broke her ribs. Hope she has a speedy recovery and no recurrence.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Just because something needs funding doesn't make theft not theft. I need to eat. Doesn't mean I can steal money for food from people without being a thief.


Fucking stupid analogy from a gimmick poster.

The government don't 'steal' tax from someone to treat themselves, we pay taxes to receive something back.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Fucking stupid analogy from a gimmick poster.
> 
> The government don't 'steal' tax from someone to treat themselves, we pay taxes to receive something back.


Look how angry you're getting because you have no argument to support the position you were indoctrinated into. :lol

The government and its manipulators absolutely enrich themselves at our expense. You also don't choose to pay anything given you literally can't refuse. That's not choice.

Meanwhile Stephen Miller debunks the idea Democrats are in any way for "border security": 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076161496504135680


----------



## virus21

Funny someone from Buzzfeed would write this. And I know this would be more for the Entertainment section, but given how politicized this subject has become...


> I started to think I might have a problem when I found myself fuming about the Ruth Bader Ginsburg action figure that was sent to me in the mail.
> 
> It was a 6-inch-tall novelty from a company that also makes a Pope Francis, a Bernie Sanders, and a Hillary Clinton, as well as baby aviator sunglasses and a line of glitter makeup called Unicorn Snot. The action figure wasn't doing me, or anyone else, any harm — in fact, the PR rep pitching it assured me that some fraction of the proceeds from its massively successful Kickstarter would be donated to a worthy cause. But the branding made me twitch: “Wire-rimmed glasses to see through patriarchal bullsh*t,” the manufacturer's diagram touted, as well as “heeled loafers to stand tall against oppressors.” This marketing copy dressed up in feminist buzzwords suggested that the mere purchase of this plastic collectible was an activist achievement, progressivism in one easy installment of $19.99.
> 
> The feeling had nothing to do with Ginsburg herself. I've been praying the 85-year-old lives and thrives and keeps working for a thousand years; I'm better acquainted with the state of her health than I am with that of my own grandparents. But that's also why the doll exasperated me. It’s just one among many, many instances of both Ginsburg and the broader idea of women's equality being cutely commodified, but it was a reminder of how low my tolerance for that commodification has become. The gap between that crowdfunded tchotchke and my own desperation-tinged investment in the well-being of the real woman it represented felt almost unbearable. Would I like to talk to the CEO about this product? I would not.
> 
> The action figure wasn't a promo, but it might as well have been; there have been two feature films about Ginsburg this year, and both take what could be described as a “collectible figurine” approach to the Supreme Court justice, treating her more as an icon than a warts-and-all person. The first, Betsy West and Julie Cohen's documentary RBG, became a low-key box office phenomenon when it hit theaters in May, running cheerily through Ginsburg’s illustrious career, as well as her workout routine. The documentary is uncritical about her recent memeification (“I have a mug of her in my room that says ‘Herstory in the Making’!” one interviewee breathlessly shares), but does break up the soothing hagiography to rap her across the knuckles for her comments about Trump. You can be notorious, it seems, so long as you're polite.
> 
> The second movie, Mimi Leder's On the Basis of Sex, comes out on Christmas and struck me as even more innocuous, with Felicity Jones performing a Sanrio-adorable interpretation of Ginsburg as a young law student, wife, mother, and eventual professor; Armie Hammer plays her supportive spouse and co-counsel Martin.
> Felicity Jones as Ruth Bader Ginsburg in On the Basis of Sex.
> Jonathan Wenk / Focus Features
> 
> Felicity Jones as Ruth Bader Ginsburg in On the Basis of Sex.
> 
> The film revolves around a landmark 1972 case the Ginsburgs took on, but its main motif is repeated imagery of Jones-as-Ruth walking wide-eyed into rooms of men, tightening her jaw and lifting her chin in cinematic determination after each encounter with bigotry. “Would it kill you to smile?” a colleague asks her at one point, so we can glare in his direction. The movie offers a quick sugar rush of righteous outrage over vintage sexism while essentially enshrining Ginsburg as a series of future inspirational GIFs.
> 
> 2018 has been as rich with slogany, simplified women's empowerment callouts as it has been with reasons for women to be filled with rage and dread, stretching way beyond the merch and mild cinema that's come to surround Ginsburg. This kind of messaging has shown up all over the movies this year, and television too, from Ocean's 8 to the Kevin Spacey-less final season of House of Cards. Some of it was sincerely meant, some of it was calculated as hell, and most of it left me in the dust.
> 
> It's been an exhausting year: a year of watching the #MeToo movement’s momentum slow, as some accused men test the waters in preparation for a return; of tuning into the Kavanaugh hearings and being reminded that there is no victim “perfect” enough to be believed when that belief is inconvenient; of having the midterms highlight the still sizable gap between how white women vote and how women of color do (presuming they're able to at all). It's been a year of constant reminders that nothing is simple or easy — certainly not solidarity.
> 
> And that’s one of the reasons broad “girl power” zingers and “smash the patriarchy” applause lines ring so hollow to me. They’re too often used to proclaim common ground while brushing over the much harder work of intersectionality, and too readily co-opted by people who will, given the shelter of anonymity, talk about Time's Up to a reporter by saying “Yap, yap — go back to your kennels.”
> 
> So I get the desire to take comfort in uplifting, streamlined messages of women's unity and to find solace in stories of women's cheery triumphs. I've just been unable to do so. Both of the Ginsburg movies are fine. Even the toy is fine. I'm as aware of the pleasure people might find in them as I am of my own detachment from it. But what I find myself craving more and more is discomfort — depictions of how messy and complicated and difficult it is to be a woman or a girl in this world. And those films were out there too — they were just, maybe unsurprisingly, deemed to be tougher sells.
> Assassination Nation (from left): Abra, Odessa Young, Hari Nef, Suki Waterhouse.
> Monica Lek / Neon / Everett Collection
> 
> Assassination Nation (from left): Abra, Odessa Young, Hari Nef, Suki Waterhouse.
> 
> I didn't see Assassination Nation at Sundance in January, where it was bought for a reported $10 million, the biggest deal in a year in which the festival was reeling from the impact of #MeToo revelations. I caught up with it in September, after it bombed in theaters, failing to find an audience for its self-satisfied modern-day riff on the story of the Salem witch trials. The movie itself, a dark comedy about teen girls fighting back against the mob of men who blame them for exposing their town's digital secrets, was nothing much — a lot of style and swagger with no real clue where to aim its satire. But the way Assassination Nation was snapped up as the most commercially viable bet out of a lineup heavy with more ambitious, interesting work from female directors — like The Tale, Shirkers, Skate Kitchen, and The Miseducation of Cameron Post — really set a tone for the year.
> 
> The head of Neon, the company that released the film later in the year, said in a statement after that disastrous opening weekend that while the numbers were disappointing, they stood by the movie's quality: “[Director] Sam Levinson has created a bold, visionary and ultimately cathartic response to the dumpster fire that is 2018.” I wouldn't agree, but what did seem to me to be indisputably 2018 was the way it was marketed, as a women's anthem (#SlayEm) couched reassuringly in terms more often used to appeal to male audiences — that it was too wild, too extreme, and too real for prudes to handle. The company's chief marketing officer did an interview with Variety to talk about how they'd had trouble placing ads for the film. “We’re making a movie about strong young women. People feel threatened because it is honest,” he said — a cynical proclamation, once you read further and learn that the ads were banned because certain shots in the trailers — a gun pointed at the camera, a girl pulling up her shirt to show her bra — violated various websites' terms of use.
> Ocean's 8 (from left): Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Rihanna, Mindy Kaling, Awkwafina, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, and Sarah Paulson.
> Barry Wetcher / Warner Bros / Everett Collection
> 
> Ocean's 8 (from left): Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Rihanna, Mindy Kaling, Awkwafina, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, and Sarah Paulson.
> 
> Companies repeatedly proved themselves ready to shell out money for content they could offer up as feminist, so long as it came in a context they felt at ease with — like, say, a remake of a proven hit, except this time with ladies. In June, there was Ocean's 8, the latest of a slate of gender-flipped do-overs that have become a studio solution to the problem of how to make more female-led films while also sticking to familiar IP. As a jumping-off point, you could do a lot worse than Steven Soderbergh's swingy, splashy heist trilogy. Warner Bros. assembled an astounding ensemble cast (Cate Blanchett! Rihanna!) and put them in a series of incredible outfits, and then, it seemed to me, stopped short of making the actual movie, which played like a rough draft, with occasional lulls that feel like they might have read “insert conflict here?” on Post-Its stuck to the script.
> 
> For weeks after seeing Ocean's 8, I couldn't get its unapologetic half-heartedness out of my head. Was it deliberate? Was this what a corporation thought women wanted? Was it, in fact, what women did want, to the tune of almost $300 million, and was I some sour-grapes outlier grumbling about how condescending I found the clunky ease of the whole thing, up to a twist that made the already happy ending even happier? What really got to me was the thought that a bunch of higher-ups felt it didn't matter — that it was the mere idea of Ocean's 8 that counted, not the actual end result, and that a hasty sketch sufficed when it came to a milestone this important. And, moneywise, they were right.
> 
> A lot of things didn't appeal to me this year — things I thought I'd love, or things I felt like I was meant to. October brought Halloween and Suspiria, horror films that promised stories of women contending with historical and personal trauma, only to somehow end up framing them in the context of men. I'm still befuddled by how much credit Halloween, David Gordon Green’s serviceable selective sequel to the John Carpenter–created series, got for its portrayals of three generations of Strode women, as if fans were trying to will it into being a more thoughtful movie than it actually was. The film even built in critiques of characters — a pair of podcasters eager to get an interview, a psychiatrist desperate to understand his most famous patient — who found silent slasher Michael Myers far more fascinating than the survivors of his rampage. But the movie couldn't get away from that impulse itself, starting with its famous killer and then returning repeatedly, as if smitten, to peer into his masked face, searching for hints of interiority.
> Tilda Swinton in Suspiria.
> Alessio Bolzoni / Amazon / Everett Collection
> 
> Tilda Swinton in Suspiria.
> 
> As for Suspiria, well, from afar Luca Guadagnino’s remake of Dario Argento's 1977 ballet witch saga wafted more dark feminine energy than a late set at a Womyn's Music Festival. It was larded with references and details that seemed weighty with significance, from the Holocaust to the Red Army Faction to the way one character scolds a doctor about treating women as delusional hysterics. But I couldn't find much there there. Worse, I couldn't shake a full-on subreddit-worthy reading that settled into my bones as I watched it — the idea that everything on screen was some phantasmagoric projection of the guilt felt by the film's main male character, Dr. Josef Klemperer, over the responsibility he bore for the death of his wife during the war. That Klemperer was played by Tilda Swinton (doing triple duty) in mounds of makeup felt like both proof of this idea and a preemptive apology — if this was a film about women that was actually about the suffering of a man, at least that man could be played by a woman.
> 
> Those were two of the bigger “ladies first” titles that left me cold, but they weren't the only ones. Netflix’s new series The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (more witches!) was pleasantly rambling, but I didn't think it ever figured out how to click together its parallel interests in Satanism and social justice in a satisfying way. The streaming service also made a show of Robin Wright inheriting the final season of House of Cards — “the reign of the middle-aged white man is over,” her character declared in the teaser, as if this were the plan all along and not a shift necessitated by the disgraced, disappeared Kevin Spacey. But while that final season showed flashes of something interesting in the way Wright’s character tried to weaponize claims of sexism once in the Oval Office, the writers weren’t able to rethink the show in any meaningful way that could free it from the shadow of the gone but far from forgotten male lead.
> 
> House of Cards creator Beau Willimon, who left the show two seasons earlier, wrote awards season hopeful Mary Queen of Scots, a period drama starring Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie that grafts modern-day perspectives onto its historical tale of warring queens — “Bow to No One,” one of the posters trumpeted — in a way that was supposed to be boldly woke and instead came across as hair-tearingly reductive. And Wright, Ronan, and Robbie weren't the only actors cast in wobbly interpretations of Strong Female Characters. Alicia Vikander in the newest Tomb Raider, Claire Foy in the semi-reboot The Girl in the Spider's Web, and Nicole Kidman in the upcoming noir detective drama Destroyer essentially make up a trinity of testaments to how the type (and I hate that it's become a type!) can be beholden to expectations of a very masculine conception of toughness.
> 
> Destroyer broke my heart a little, coming as it did from Jennifer's Body director Karyn Kusama, whose career I've followed for years. But it is so intent on proving that women can partake in the worst gritty cop cliches too, with Kidman layering on wigs and aging makeup to pistol-whip people and burst in guns-a-blazing as LAPD detective Erin Bell. Watching the movie, I felt an intense pang for something I yearn for and am still not finding as often as I'd like — art by and for and about women that doesn't feel the need to prove it can keep up with the boys, because it doesn't worry about what the boys think at all.
> Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz in Revenge.
> Neon / Everett Collection
> 
> Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz in Revenge.
> 
> I didn't actually spend the year alienated from everything I saw, although I'm sure I've just made it sound that way. What's funny about this litany of discontent is that some of the work I've found most satisfying in 2018 has a lot in common with the stuff I felt so distant from, as if there to offer some relief. For instance, a much better movie than Assassination Nation, with all its trigger warning–fronted provocations, was Coralie Fargeat's Revenge, a brutal banger of a directorial debut that also played at Sundance and that also got picked up, for a less sprawling release, by Neon.
> 
> Fargeat's movie, like Assassination Nation, is a stylish drama about a woman (Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz) striking back at the men who've done her harm. But Revenge is so precise with its gaze, especially in how it portrays the assault and the betrayal that set the action in motion. It isn't just an unstintingly violent thriller; it's a movie that interrogates the whole rape revenge tradition it's a part of, demanding that we think about why stories that are, in theory, about women reclaiming their agency have been such a regular fixture of exploitation film.
> Left: Viola Davis (left) and Cynthia Erivo in Widows. Right: Support the Girls (from left): Dylan Gelula, Shayna McHayle, Regina Hall, Haley Lu Richardson, and AJ Michalka.
> Merrick Morton / 20th Century Fox / Everett Collection; Magnolia Pictures / Everett Collection
> 
> Left: Viola Davis (left) and Cynthia Erivo in Widows. Right: Support the Girls (from left): Dylan Gelula, Shayna McHayle, Regina Hall, Haley Lu Richardson, and AJ Michalka.
> 
> Steve McQueen's Widows is a much darker, higher-stakes heist film than Ocean's 8, but I found its groundedness more appealing than the other movie's purported escapism. It doesn't surprise me that the studio behind it had no idea how to market it, though. It was a women-led thriller that wasn't all easy sisterhood, with a set of characters who came from different places in terms of race and class, armed with various expectations and resentments. They don't like each other right away, and they aren’t instantly great at crime. Why would they be? The smile Viola Davis gives one of her costars in the last act is heartstopping because it's so hard-won, one of the few genuine expressions of warmth in the movie. This crew’s successes are all the sweeter because they’ve had to fumble through and work to find out, literally, if they can bear up under the weight of what they're doing.
> 
> For that matter, why see Mary Queen of Scots when you can watch The Favourite, Yorgos Lanthimos's gleeful comedy about power struggles in Queen Anne's court, in which the three women at its center aren't revised into anachronistic empowerment archetypes but instead allowed to be schemers, sadists, and survivors? (Both films also happen to feature Joe Alwyn as a lord one woman isn’t sure she can be bothered to marry, but only in The Favourite is he on the receiving end of an indifferent hand job from Emma Stone.) I'd take Sharp Objects, which is really about women and inherited trauma, or Hereditary, with Toni Collette's fearless portrayal of a maternal nightmare of a character, over the limp, mostly-for-show offerings in Halloween or Suspiria. And the first season of Killing Eve felt like a giddy retort to Strong Female obligations, falling somewhere between thriller and love story, expectations about how an agent-versus-assassin story should go misfiring gloriously all over the place.
> 
> I'd also salute Support the Girls over almost everything else that was presented as an inspiring tale of female badassery this year. Andrew Bujalski's comedy wasn't advertised on the strength of its feminist bona fides, maybe because it takes place in a faux-Hooters where the servers wear cutoffs and crop tops, but it's one of the best and most bittersweet portrayals of the power and the limitations of women's solidarity within a crushing capitalist system I've ever seen.
> 
> As the manager, Lisa, Regina Hall smiles her way through her never-ending struggle to protect her mostly women employees against customers who disrespect them, boyfriends who abuse them, child care that falls through, and bosses who take advantage of them or divvy up their shifts according to skin tone. She can't protect them from themselves, though, and sometimes they're their own worst enemies. And she is so very tired, and it's consuming her life, but what is she going to do, give up? “I can take fucking up all day, but I can’t take not trying,” she tells the man she's not going to be married to for much longer. It's one of the most relatable lines of the year, and it may not offer easy uplift, but I'd listen to her say it a million times over any of the cheeriest girl-power rallying cries.
> I felt an intense pang for something I yearn for and am still not finding — art by and for and about women that doesn't feel the need to prove it can keep up with the boys.
> 
> The thing about “this was made for you” movie messaging is that there's often an implied threat that comes with it: “and if you don't like it, well, then it's your fault when we stop making things we think will appeal to you.” It's the fear underscoring so much work that comes from underrepresented creators or that features underrepresented characters. This holds true for race and sexuality as well as gender; these films or TV shows are not just bearing the burdens of representation for a whole demographic, they also have to prove how financially viable that representation is.
> 
> That’s one of the big reasons I've gotten so leery about girl-power messaging — there's often so little to back it up, as seen in some of the titles mentioned in this piece, but the expectations and ramifications that come with it can be immense. The box office success of Ocean's 8 may or may not lead to more films like it, but if it had failed, some executive somewhere surely would have used it as an example for why big women-led studio productions just aren't viable.
> 
> What I've been frustrated by is not just the commodification of feminism, though I find that pretty soul-crushing. It's that packaging feminist ideas so neatly can feel, to me, like an expression of the desire to skip past so much of the significant, systemic work to be done and go straight to the commemorative T-shirt — or the cloying documentary portrait, the feel-good biopic, the star-packed remake. I can't relate to that, and at the same time I'm tired of the idea that we need to relitigate the worth of art and entertainment by women, about women, for women, again and again.
> 
> Women aren't a monolith, and we shouldn't have to be called on via slogans to constantly prove our viability as a paying audience. We shouldn’t feel any niggling sense of obligation to be grateful for any representation we can get, even when it’s mediocre or reductive or just something that isn’t your cup of tea — but I do feel it, and I resent it even as I'm not able to entirely let it go. I want to “see through patriarchal bullsh*t,” and “stand tall against oppressors.” I just don't think an action figure is going to show me how it's done.


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alisonwillmore/this-years-movies-sold-girl-power-but-i-wasnt-buying-it


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Just because something needs funding doesn't make theft not theft. I need to eat. Doesn't mean I can steal money for food from people without being a thief.


Uh there are always going to be public services and utilities that require funding. You are apart of that public. 

You like having a military don't you? You like having a policing body don't you? Roads? Parks? Buses? Trains? Someone has to pay for these things. Those are the conditions of living in the city/state/country of which you choose to reside. 

Whether it's govt that provides these services or a private entity, how else can you have these things without paying for them?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Uh there are always going to be public services and utilities that require funding. You are apart of that public.
> 
> You like having a military don't you? You like having a policing body don't you? Roads? Parks? Buses? Trains? Someone has to pay for these things. Those are the conditions of living in the city/state/country of which you choose to reside.
> 
> Whether it's govt that provides these services or a private entity, how else can you have these things without paying for them?


I don't know why you think I'm saying we should have these things for free. I'm for privatizing everything.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know why you think I'm saying we should have these things for free. I'm for privatizing everything.


Hey works for me.

The only field where I see it being a major issue is policing. Do they patrol the streets? Do they only service paying customers?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Policing is one of the first things that should be privatized. Neighborhoods or clusters of neighborhoods could collectively fund policing for their entire area.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Policing is one of the first things that should be privatized. Neighborhoods or clusters of neighborhoods could collectively fund policing for their entire area.


Well that's just taxes by a different name then isn't it?. Someone who's new to the community would be forced to pay for a police force he/she had no hand in choosing, right? It's the same principle.

In a privatized system I imagine there would be multiple policing bodies just like in any other industry. You'd have a choice. But I'm still wondering how they would handle patrolling and preventing random crimes. Maybe they would consider that marketing and provide those services on the arm. Who knows.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Well that's just taxes by a different name then isn't it?. Someone who's new to the community would be forced to pay for a police force he/she had no hand in choosing, right? It's the same principle.
> 
> In a privatized system I imagine there would be multiple policing bodies just like in any other industry. You'd have a choice. But I'm still wondering how they would handle patrolling and preventing random crimes. Maybe they would consider that marketing and provide those services on the arm. Who knows.


no because the situation can be worked out in a thousand ways without anyone being thrown in jail


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking stupid analogy from a gimmick poster.
> 
> The government don't 'steal' tax from someone to treat themselves, we pay taxes to receive something back.
> 
> 
> 
> Look how angry you're getting because you have no argument to support the position you were indoctrinated into. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> The government and its manipulators absolutely enrich themselves at our expense. You also don't choose to pay anything given you literally can't refuse. That's not choice.
> 
> Meanwhile Stephen Miller debunks the idea Democrats are in any way for "border security":
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076161496504135680
Click to expand...

How am I angry? It's been rebutted a hundred times, thieves don't give you something of greater value in return.

Keep gimmicking



Berzerker's Beard said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Policing is one of the first things that should be privatized. Neighborhoods or clusters of neighborhoods could collectively fund policing for their entire area.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's just taxes by a different name then isn't it?. Someone who's new to the community would be forced to pay for a police force he/she had no hand in choosing, right? It's the same principle.
> 
> In a privatized system I imagine there would be multiple policing bodies just like in any other industry. You'd have a choice. But I'm still wondering how they would handle patrolling and preventing random crimes. Maybe they would consider that marketing and provide those services on the arm. Who knows.
Click to expand...

From what I've read the private police right now tend to focus more on the preventative rather than conviction which mashes sense as they have limited powers.

If I thought for a second the voting populace were financially literate or motivated enough to micro manage everything the state does I'd be interested to see a country try libertarianism just for shits and giggles.

There a reason why it's niche though, the vast majority of people just don't care about any notions of tax as theft because, well, it's not, but they generally get what they want out of paying tax and any alternatives are just based on nothing theories never put in practice.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

@Draykorinee

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...HP5iea5q4MrJQF3o8VtoN67LB45wMNDbR2EHjipgvcQTo



> Nearly a third of arms exports authorised by Britain over the past decade were to nations identified by the government as among the worst for human rights, new figures reveal.
> 
> Military arms deals worth an estimated £39bn were approved between 2008 and 2017, £12bn of which went to states included on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights “priority countries” list, according to analysis by Action on Armed Violence.
> 
> Over that period, the only country on the 30-strong watchlist to which Britain did not approve arms export deals was North Korea.
> 
> The analysis of the figures, collated by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade using export control data from the Department for International Trade, shows a clear upward trend in arms sales approved to watchlist countries, although individual years vary. The values are likely to be a “conservative estimate”, CAAT said, due to an opaque system of “open” licences that allow an unlimited number of consignments over a fixed period.
> 
> The DIT confirmed open licences are included among export licence figures, but has denied they are subject to less scrutiny.
> 
> The data shows a record number of arms export licences to nations on the watchlist in 2017, almost double the previous year. While 2018 was not included in the study, the British deal to supply 48 Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia, reported earlier this year, is worth £5bn alone, a value that dwarfs previous agreements.
> 
> In 2017, there were 855 military licence approvals for Saudi, worth £1.3bn, compared with 331, worth £680m, the previous year.
> 
> In total, 5,782 export licences for military items in countries of concern were approved last year, worth £1.5bn, up from 2,477, worth £820m, in 2016.
> 
> In July, MPs from the committee on arms export control called on the government to adopt a default position of blocking arms sales to countries accused of abuses.
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Colombia, all countries on the FCO watchlist, were among the DTI’s “core markets” for defence and security opportunities for 2017-18.
> 
> Britain is Saudi Arabia’s second largest arms dealer after the US, providing military exports worth £10.3bn over the past decade despite continued condemnation of the kingdom’s use of British weaponry in its bombing of Yemen. UN agencies allege that the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen has violated international humanitarian standards, including widespread and systematic attacks on civilian targets.
> 
> International pressure to halt arms to Riyadh has intensified following the death of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist, at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October. Last month, Denmark and Finland joined Germany in halting future arms sales to the kingdom, although their arms exports are relatively small.
> 
> British arms exports were also approved to many countries with weapon sales restrictions imposed by the UN, the EU or both. These include China, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and Russia.
> 
> The DIT said it respects both EU and UN arms embargoes, but that it may send items not defined as weaponry to peacekeepers in such countries.
> 
> Lloyd Russell-Moyle, a member of the Commons committee on arms exports control and the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, said: “Approving sales of powerful surveillance equipment to regimes that hunt and kill journalists, or planes and bombs to dictators who use them on schools and hospitals, is a clear-cut violation of UK arms export control law. The government contempt for the law has inevitably resulted in UK arms exports enabling human rights abuses worldwide.”
> 
> Iain Overton, of Action on Armed Violence, said: “There needs to be more attention focused on analysis of human rights reports before we sell arms to these countries. Even if there was now to be an arms embargo for Saudi Arabia, we have funded Saudi arsenals. There is no notion of pre-planning or forewarning.”
> 
> Andrew Smith, of CAAT, called on the prime minister to put human rights ahead of arms sales. There is “little control of how these weapons will be used or who they will be used against. Right now, UK arms are playing a central role in the Saudi-led destruction of Yemen. The arms sales that are being promoted today could be used to fuel atrocities for years to come.
> 
> “The policy of arming dictatorships and pouring weapons into warzones has been pursued by governments of all political colours. It is time for Theresa May and her colleagues to end the hypocrisy and finally put human rights ahead of arms sales.”
> 
> A DIT spokesman said:“The UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. Risks around human rights abuses are a key part of our export licensing assessment, which also takes into account our obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty and other relevant rules of international law.”



Much is made of the US's arm sales and involvement in particular in the Yemen conflict by proxy and rightly so, but we are the 2nd biggest arms dealers in the world and have had quite the cozy relationship with the Saudi's. We continue to profit off of war and in this case, genocide and several human rights violations in Yemen.

These sorts of findings are infuriating to say the least.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Draykorinee

Christmas DOPAmine said:


> @Draykorinee
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/global-...HP5iea5q4MrJQF3o8VtoN67LB45wMNDbR2EHjipgvcQTo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly a third of arms exports authorised by Britain over the past decade were to nations identified by the government as among the worst for human rights, new figures reveal.
> 
> Military arms deals worth an estimated £39bn were approved between 2008 and 2017, £12bn of which went to states included on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights “priority countries” list, according to analysis by Action on Armed Violence.
> 
> Over that period, the only country on the 30-strong watchlist to which Britain did not approve arms export deals was North Korea.
> 
> The analysis of the figures, collated by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade using export control data from the Department for International Trade, shows a clear upward trend in arms sales approved to watchlist countries, although individual years vary. The values are likely to be a “conservative estimate”, CAAT said, due to an opaque system of “open” licences that allow an unlimited number of consignments over a fixed period.
> 
> The DIT confirmed open licences are included among export licence figures, but has denied they are subject to less scrutiny.
> 
> The data shows a record number of arms export licences to nations on the watchlist in 2017, almost double the previous year. While 2018 was not included in the study, the British deal to supply 48 Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia, reported earlier this year, is worth £5bn alone, a value that dwarfs previous agreements.
> 
> In 2017, there were 855 military licence approvals for Saudi, worth £1.3bn, compared with 331, worth £680m, the previous year.
> 
> In total, 5,782 export licences for military items in countries of concern were approved last year, worth £1.5bn, up from 2,477, worth £820m, in 2016.
> 
> In July, MPs from the committee on arms export control called on the government to adopt a default position of blocking arms sales to countries accused of abuses.
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Colombia, all countries on the FCO watchlist, were among the DTI’s “core markets” for defence and security opportunities for 2017-18.
> 
> Britain is Saudi Arabia’s second largest arms dealer after the US, providing military exports worth £10.3bn over the past decade despite continued condemnation of the kingdom’s use of British weaponry in its bombing of Yemen. UN agencies allege that the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen has violated international humanitarian standards, including widespread and systematic attacks on civilian targets.
> 
> International pressure to halt arms to Riyadh has intensified following the death of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist, at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October. Last month, Denmark and Finland joined Germany in halting future arms sales to the kingdom, although their arms exports are relatively small.
> 
> British arms exports were also approved to many countries with weapon sales restrictions imposed by the UN, the EU or both. These include China, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and Russia.
> 
> The DIT said it respects both EU and UN arms embargoes, but that it may send items not defined as weaponry to peacekeepers in such countries.
> 
> Lloyd Russell-Moyle, a member of the Commons committee on arms exports control and the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, said: “Approving sales of powerful surveillance equipment to regimes that hunt and kill journalists, or planes and bombs to dictators who use them on schools and hospitals, is a clear-cut violation of UK arms export control law. The government contempt for the law has inevitably resulted in UK arms exports enabling human rights abuses worldwide.”
> 
> Iain Overton, of Action on Armed Violence, said: “There needs to be more attention focused on analysis of human rights reports before we sell arms to these countries. Even if there was now to be an arms embargo for Saudi Arabia, we have funded Saudi arsenals. There is no notion of pre-planning or forewarning.”
> 
> Andrew Smith, of CAAT, called on the prime minister to put human rights ahead of arms sales. There is “little control of how these weapons will be used or who they will be used against. Right now, UK arms are playing a central role in the Saudi-led destruction of Yemen. The arms sales that are being promoted today could be used to fuel atrocities for years to come.
> 
> “The policy of arming dictatorships and pouring weapons into warzones has been pursued by governments of all political colours. It is time for Theresa May and her colleagues to end the hypocrisy and finally put human rights ahead of arms sales.”
> 
> A DIT spokesman said:“The UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. Risks around human rights abuses are a key part of our export licensing assessment, which also takes into account our obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty and other relevant rules of international law.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much is made of the US's arm sales and involvement in particular in the Yemen conflict by proxy and rightly so, but we are the 2nd biggest arms dealers in the world and have had quite the cozy relationship with the Saudi's. We continue to profit off of war and in this case, genocide and several human rights violations in Yemen.
> 
> These sorts of findings are infuriating to say the least.
Click to expand...

Our government loves a good war, we're so desperate to maintain some semblance of importance in the world stage that we go in to every conflict with gusto. Both parties are obsessed with it.

Owen Jones may well be an odious little toad but he's been on the right side of this Yemen debate since it started.

Fed up of it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

What you guys think your governments were innocent even during the rise if Hitler? Capitalists love war mongerers. It's good for business. Always has been. Always will be. 

We focus on companies that directly supply war machines. But companies that continue to do all kinds of business continues to make sure that those countries' economnies continue to function. 

Sanctions work. But when it comes to certain countries the world refuses to out sanctions in them. 

Lol


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Policing is one of the first things that should be privatized. Neighborhoods or clusters of neighborhoods could collectively fund policing for their entire area.


Why not make the NAP the Police

Anyone who violates the NAP is getting nuked


----------



## virus21

> As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.
> 
> The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.
> 
> One participant in the Alabama project, Jonathon Morgan, is the chief executive of New Knowledge, a small cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election that was released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
> 
> An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”
> 
> The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.
> 
> “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says.
> 
> You have 1 free article remaining.
> Subscribe to The Times
> 
> Mr. Morgan said in an interview that the Russian botnet ruse “does not ring a bell,” adding that others had worked on the effort and had written the report. He said he saw the project as “a small experiment” designed to explore how certain online tactics worked, not to affect the election.
> 
> Mr. Morgan said he could not account for the claims in the report that the project sought to “enrage and energize Democrats” and “depress turnout” among Republicans, partly by emphasizing accusations that Mr. Moore had pursued teenage girls when he was a prosecutor in his 30s.
> 
> “The research project was intended to help us understand how these kind of campaigns operated,” said Mr. Morgan. “We thought it was useful to work in the context of a real election but design it to have almost no impact.”
> Editors’ Picks
> What Is Glitter?
> No Heat for 10 Years, and the City Is Their Landlord
> Tracking the Race Across Antarctica
> 
> The project had a budget of just $100,000, in a race that cost approximately $51 million, including the primaries, according to Federal Election Commission records.
> Workers hung a United States flag in preparation for a Roy Moore rally held in Midland City, Ala.CreditCarlo Allegri/Reuters
> Image
> Workers hung a United States flag in preparation for a Roy Moore rally held in Midland City, Ala.CreditCarlo Allegri/Reuters
> 
> But however modest, the influence effort in Alabama may be a sign of things to come. Campaign veterans in both parties fear the Russian example may set off a race to the bottom, in which candidates choose social media manipulation because they fear their opponents will.
> 
> “Some will do whatever it takes to win,” said Dan Bayens, a Kentucky-based Republican consultant. “You’ve got Russia, which showed folks how to do it, you’ve got consultants willing to engage in this type of behavior and political leaders who apparently find it futile to stop it.”
> 
> There is no evidence that Mr. Jones sanctioned or was even aware of the social media project. Joe Trippi, a seasoned Democratic operative who served as a top adviser to the Jones campaign, said he had noticed the Russian bot swarm suddenly following Mr. Moore on Twitter. But he said it was impossible that a $100,000 operation had an impact on the race.
> 
> Mr. Trippi said he was nonetheless disturbed by the stealth operation. “I think the big danger is somebody in this cycle uses the dark arts of bots and social networks and it works,” he said. “Then we’re in real trouble.”
> 
> Despite its small size, the Alabama project brought together some prominent names in the world of political technology. The funding came from Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, who has sought to help Democrats catch up with Republicans in their use of online technology.
> 
> The money passed through American Engagement Technologies, run by Mikey Dickerson, the founding director of the United States Digital Service, which was created during the Obama administration to try to upgrade the federal government’s use of technology. Sara K. Hudson, a former Justice Department fellow now with Investing in Us, a tech finance company partly funded by Mr. Hoffman, worked on the project, along with Mr. Morgan.
> Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
> 
> A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
> 
> Advertisement
> 
> A close collaborator of Mr. Hoffman, Dmitri Mehlhorn, the founder of Investing in Us, said in a statement that “our purpose in investing in politics and civic engagement is to strengthen American democracy” and that while they do not “micromanage” the projects they fund, they are not aware of having financed projects that have used deception. Mr. Dickerson declined to comment and Ms. Hudson did not respond to queries.
> 
> The Alabama project got started as Democrats were coming to grips with the Russians’ weaponizing of social media to undermine the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and promote Donald J. Trump.
> 
> Mr. Morgan reached out at the time to Renée DiResta, who would later join New Knowledge and was lead author of the report on Russian social media operations released this week.
> 
> “I know there were people who believed the Democrats needed to fight fire with fire,” Ms. DiResta said, adding that she disagreed. “It was absolutely chatter going around the party.”
> 
> But she said Mr. Morgan simply asked her for suggestions of online tactics worth testing. “My understanding was that they were going to investigate to what extent they could grow audiences for Facebook pages using sensational news,” she said.
> 
> Mr. Morgan confirmed that the project created a generic page to draw conservative Alabamians — he said he couldn’t remember its name — and that Mac Watson, one of multiple write-in candidates, contacted the page. “But we didn’t do anything on his behalf,” he said.
> Reid Hoffman at the LinkedIn offices in Sunnyvale, Calif., in 2017. He financed the experiment in the Alabama Senate race.CreditJason Henry for The New York Times
> Image
> Reid Hoffman at the LinkedIn offices in Sunnyvale, Calif., in 2017. He financed the experiment in the Alabama Senate race.CreditJason Henry for The New York Times
> 
> The report, however, says the Facebook page agreed to “boost” Mr. Watson’s campaign and stayed in regular touch with him, and was “treated as an advisor and the go-to media contact for the write-in candidate.’’ The report claims the page got him interviews with The Montgomery Advertiser and The Washington Post.
> 
> Mr. Watson, who runs a patio supply company in Auburn, Ala., confirmed that he got some assistance from a Facebook page whose operators seemed determined to stay in the shadows.
> 
> Of dozens of conservative Alabamian-oriented pages on Facebook that he wrote to, only one replied. “You are in a particularly interesting position and from what we have read of your politics, we would be inclined to endorse you,” the unnamed operator of the page wrote. After Mr. Watson answered a single question about abortion rights as a sort of test, the page offered an endorsement, though no money.
> 
> “They never spent one red dime as far as I know on anything I did — they just kind of told their 400 followers, ‘Hey, vote for this guy,’” Mr. Watson said.
> 
> Mr. Watson never spoke with the page’s author or authors by phone, and they declined a request for meeting. But he did notice something unusual: his Twitter followers suddenly ballooned from about 100 to about 10,000. The Facebook page’s operators asked Mr. Watson whether he trusted anyone to set up a super PAC that could receive funding and offered advice on how to sharpen his appeal to disenchanted Republican voters.
> 
> Shortly before the election, the page sent him a message, wishing him luck.
> 
> The report does not say whether the project purchased the Russian bot Twitter accounts that suddenly began to follow Mr. Moore. But it takes credit for “radicalizing Democrats with a Russian bot scandal” and points to stories on the phenomenon in the mainstream media. “Roy Moore flooded with fake Russian Twitter followers,” reported The New York Post.
> 
> Inside the Moore campaign, officials began to worry about online interference.
> 
> “We did have suspicions that something odd was going on,” said Rich Hobson, Mr. Moore’s campaign manager. Mr. Hobson said that although he did not recall any hard evidence of interference, the campaign complained to Facebook about potential chicanery.
> 
> “Any and all of these things could make a difference,” Mr. Hobson said. “It’s definitely frustrating, and we still kick ourselves that Judge Moore didn’t win.”
> 
> Advertisement
> 
> When Election Day came, Mr. Jones became the first Alabama Democrat elected to the Senate in a quarter of a century, defeating Mr. Moore by 21,924 votes in a race that drew more than 22,800 write-in votes. More than 1.3 million ballots were cast over all.
> 
> Many of the write-in votes went to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Condoleezza Rice — an Alabama native and former secretary of state — certain popular football coaches and Jesus Christ. Mr. Watson drew just a few hundred votes.
> 
> Mr. Watson noticed one other oddity. The day after the vote, the Facebook page that had taken such an interest in him had vanished.
> 
> “It was a group that, like, honest to God, next day was gone,” said Mr. Watson.
> 
> “It was weird,” he said. “The whole thing was weird.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html





God 2018 was a rough year

And it comes all full circle


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> And it comes all full circle


The White Males they blame everything on are going to be a protected class soon enough. :laugh:

Also her sign is vague, they've overused Nazi so much that I've no idea who they're talking about. Literal Nazis? Neo-Nazis? KKK? People who don't think like her? Who exactly is the target? :hmmm

Is anyone really surprised by this though? >


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> The White Males they blame everything on are going to be a protected class soon enough. :laugh:


Its already started in universities in the UK. There they are trying to recruit more white males because, shock of shocks, they're now so few that they have minority status


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


>


Little confused as to how people didn't know about this.. Linda Sarsour and like half the people involved are pretty outspoken on it all. 

It also doesn't help you have Jewish people writing articles and posting on Twitter with "Fellow white people" stuff and then later saying, "I'm not white, I'm Jewish!". All that does is confuse people and make people think there is some conspiracy. 

Still the drama is funny. >


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Little confused as to how people didn't know about this.. Linda Sarsour and like half the people involved are pretty outspoken on it all.
> 
> It also doesn't help you have Jewish people writing articles and posting on Twitter with "Fellow white people" stuff and then later saying, "I'm not white, I'm Jewish!". All that does is confuse people and make people think there is some conspiracy.
> 
> Still the drama is funny. >


And now...


----------



## DOPA

https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/26/100-...w9oM5xA8WmRgwptRnL4wavQ2HAAiRvEY9qnknQzQVr0O0



> A Tory MP has blasted the Home Office as he claimed more than 100 migrants have ‘broken into Britain’ in recent weeks. Charlie Elphicke urged the authorities to ‘get a grip’ following reports that 43 migrants crossed the Channel over Christmas and Boxing Day. The Dover MP said the Home Office and National Crime Agency do not appear to be on top of the problem.
> 
> The Border Force were called to five separate instances involving 40 people saying they were from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan on Christmas day. Three more men, believed to be from Iran, were intercepted by the French authorities near Dover overnight. They were all transferred to the UK authorities and will be interviewed by immigration officials. A further five people turned up at Dover police station early on Christmas Day saying they were Iranians who had arrived by boat. An abandoned craft was later discovered. ‘The Home Office and the National Crime Agency do not appear to be on top of this situation,’ Mr Elphicke said.
> 
> ‘With well over 100 migrants having broken into Britain in recent weeks they need urgently to explain what they are doing to put a stop to these crossings. ‘This is an incredibly dangerous crossing to make in the middle of winter. ‘Our volunteer lifeboat crews are being called out nearly every day – even during Christmas. ‘The British and French authorities must get a grip and find and stop the traffickers behind these crossings before there is a tragedy in the English Channel.’ Campaigners say the authorities should help migrants make the crossing to the UK if they wish to claim asylum, rather than have them risk crossing the busy shipping lanes in the Channel.
> 
> Kent Refugee Action Network spokeswoman Bridget Chapman told the BBC: ‘We shouldn’t have to have a situation where people are forced to make such a hazardous journey, pushed into the hands of people traffickers, pushed into being exploited. ‘We need to find a way to facilitate it so that they are able to do that journey safely.’ The Home Office said: ‘Border Force has intercepted a number of boats containing migrants attempting to cross the Channel overnight and this morning, and has deployed resources to deal with these incidents. ‘The evidence shows there is organised criminal gang activity behind illegal migration attempts by small boats across the Channel. ‘We are working closely with the French and law enforcement partners to target these gangs, who exploit vulnerable people and put lives at risk.'





virus21 said:


>


This is one of the reasons why contrary to popular belief, I'm not a Conservative.


----------



## Draykorinee

Christmas DOPAmine said:


> https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/26/100-...w9oM5xA8WmRgwptRnL4wavQ2HAAiRvEY9qnknQzQVr0O0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Tory MP has blasted the Home Office as he claimed more than 100 migrants have ‘broken into Britain’ in recent weeks. Charlie Elphicke urged the authorities to ‘get a grip’ following reports that 43 migrants crossed the Channel over Christmas and Boxing Day. The Dover MP said the Home Office and National Crime Agency do not appear to be on top of the problem.
> 
> The Border Force were called to five separate instances involving 40 people saying they were from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan on Christmas day. Three more men, believed to be from Iran, were intercepted by the French authorities near Dover overnight. They were all transferred to the UK authorities and will be interviewed by immigration officials. A further five people turned up at Dover police station early on Christmas Day saying they were Iranians who had arrived by boat. An abandoned craft was later discovered. ‘The Home Office and the National Crime Agency do not appear to be on top of this situation,’ Mr Elphicke said.
> 
> ‘With well over 100 migrants having broken into Britain in recent weeks they need urgently to explain what they are doing to put a stop to these crossings. ‘This is an incredibly dangerous crossing to make in the middle of winter. ‘Our volunteer lifeboat crews are being called out nearly every day – even during Christmas. ‘The British and French authorities must get a grip and find and stop the traffickers behind these crossings before there is a tragedy in the English Channel.’ Campaigners say the authorities should help migrants make the crossing to the UK if they wish to claim asylum, rather than have them risk crossing the busy shipping lanes in the Channel.
> 
> Kent Refugee Action Network spokeswoman Bridget Chapman told the BBC: ‘We shouldn’t have to have a situation where people are forced to make such a hazardous journey, pushed into the hands of people traffickers, pushed into being exploited. ‘We need to find a way to facilitate it so that they are able to do that journey safely.’ The Home Office said: ‘Border Force has intercepted a number of boats containing migrants attempting to cross the Channel overnight and this morning, and has deployed resources to deal with these incidents. ‘The evidence shows there is organised criminal gang activity behind illegal migration attempts by small boats across the Channel. ‘We are working closely with the French and law enforcement partners to target these gangs, who exploit vulnerable people and put lives at risk.'
Click to expand...

What we need is a wall. A one foot high wall so when they cross in the dark they trip over and bang their shins.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> And now...


Everyone should watch this video. I'm sure people will feign surprise at the hateful nonsense of the Women's March leaders. They've never hidden their racist or bigoted views! Linda has even got praise from David Duke on her views of Jewish people. :laugh: "B-but they're poc.. they cannot be r-racists or b-bigots!" Yes, yes they can hun. :x

As for the Antifa part, I said this when people here were thinking Antifa were great. I was like yeah, no, there are videos of them using racial slurs, attacking disabled people and non-whites who don't hold their beliefs. They're not anti-racists in the least. :quite


----------



## Draykorinee

People thought Antifa were great on here? I mean, they're the lesser of two evils between them and Nazis but do they have or ever had a positive image on WF?

I don't even know who these women march peeps are but they don't seem my kind of people.


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I remember some white Liberals on Wreddit telling a Mexican guy "It doesn't matter if you don't find LHP offensive, we find it racist therefor it is".

I wish that I wasn't forced to go to that shithole for wrestling news


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





Bullshit poll is right


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> People thought Antifa were great on here? I mean, they're the lesser of two evils between them and Nazis but do they have or ever had a positive image on WF?
> 
> I don't even know who these women march peeps are but they don't seem my kind of people.


Yes there were people actually defending them here. So was CNN and a lot of the MSM until more info (which was already available) came out on them.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/eureka-local-news/organizers-cancel-womens-march-jan-19-due-to-overwhelmingly-white-participants



> *California organizers cancel Women's March due to 'overwhelmingly white' participants*
> 
> EUREKA, Calif. (KRCR) — The organizers of the annual Women's March have decided not to hold a rally in Eureka on Jan. 19, as previously planned, because they say participants do not represent the diversity of the area.
> 
> "This decision was made after many conversations between local social-change organizers and supporters of the march," organizers said in a press release.
> 
> They said organizers will continue to meet and discuss how to broaden representation to create an event that represents Humboldt County.
> 
> "Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community," the press release went on to say. "Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach. Our goal is that planning will continue and we will be successful in creating an event that will build power and community engagement through connection between women that seek to improve the lives of all in our community."
> 
> The group said it is exploring holding an event in March to celebrate International Women’s Day. Anyone interested in helping organize these events are welcome and encouraged to attend.
> 
> The Eureka Women's March organizing committee encourages local supporters to attend the Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration in Eureka on Jan. 21, Martin Luther King Jr. Day.


----------



## virus21

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/eureka-local-news/organizers-cancel-womens-march-jan-19-due-to-overwhelmingly-white-participants


Its almost as if most POC have better things to do with their day.



> Reid Hoffman, the tech billionaire whose money was spent on Russian-style social media deception in a Senate race last year, apologized on Wednesday, saying in a statement that he had not approved the operation and did not support such tactics in American politics.
> Mr. Hoffman said he had no idea that political operatives whose work he had financed had used fakery on Facebook and Twitter in the special Senate election a year ago in Alabama. But he had an obligation to track how his money was spent, he said, and he promised to exercise more care in the future.
> “I categorically disavow the use of misinformation to sway an election,” said Mr. Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn and a prominent figure at the intersection of Silicon Valley and Democratic politics. He said he had financed “organizations trying to re-establish civic, truth-focused discourse” and was “embarrassed” to learn his money had been spent on disinformation.
> The New York Times and The Washington Post reported last week that $100,000 from Mr. Hoffman was spent on a deceptive social media campaign to aid Doug Jones, the Democratic candidate, who barely defeated the Republican, Roy Moore.
> The money went to a small group of social media experts that included Jonathon Morgan, the chief executive of New Knowledge, a cybersecurity firm.
> They created a Facebook page intended to look like the work of conservative Alabamians, and used it to try to split Republicans and promote a conservative write-in candidate to take votes from Mr. Moore.
> They also used thousands of Twitter accounts to make it appear as if automated Russian bot accounts were following and supporting Mr. Moore, according to an internal report on the project. The apparent Russian support for Mr. Moore drew broad news media coverage.
> Democratic political strategists say the small Alabama operation — which accounts for a minuscule share of the $51 million spent in the contest — was carried out as a debate about tactics intensified within the party.
> Democrats had been shocked to learn of Russia’s stealth influence campaign to damage Hillary Clinton and promote Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential race. But at least a few Democrats thought their party could not shun such tactics entirely if others were going to continue to use them.
> The Alabama operation is among the first examples to come to light of such underhanded methods on social media in American politics. But because such efforts are generally very easy to hide and very difficult to trace, it is possible that other instances have gone undetected.
> In 2017, through a fund called Investing in Us, Mr. Hoffman gave money to a small company, American Engagement Technologies. The company’s leader, Mikey Dickerson, is a former Google employee who founded the United States Digital Service during the Obama administration to try to upgrade the federal government’s use of technology. An associate of Mr. Hoffman’s said that his total grant to American Engagement was $750,000, which also went toward other political races and social media research. Mr. Dickerson has declined to comment.
> American Engagement then passed $100,000 to Mr. Morgan and other researchers. Mr. Hoffman’s statement says the money went to Mr. Morgan’s company, New Knowledge, but Mr. Morgan said the Alabama project was carried out separately from the company.
> The revelations of and fallout from the operation are being closely watched. Some American political experts fear that the Russian influence campaign of 2016 could become a dangerous model for stateside politics, with dirty tricks on social media becoming common. Laws and regulations have not been updated to cope with such a threat.
> On Saturday, Facebook shut down five accounts, belonging to Mr. Morgan and other unnamed individuals, in response to their use of “inauthentic” operations on the platform. Twitter declined to say whether it had taken any action in the Alabama case.
> Senator Jones and Democratic Party officials have said they were unaware of the social media tactics and denounced them. Mr. Jones has called for investigations by the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission — a call Mr. Hoffman joined on Wednesday.
> “We cannot permit dishonest campaign tactics to go unchecked in our democracy — no matter which side they purportedly help,” Mr. Hoffman said in his statement.
> Mr. Hoffman, whose net worth is estimated by Forbes at $1.7 billion, has long been involved in politics. In 2017 he co-founded an organization called Win the Future that billed itself as a “nonpartisan project lab” intended to encourage every American to become an informed voter. He has also supported Vote.org, which has a similar goal, and Higher Ground Labs, a start-up to help progressive candidates.
> He has made no secret of his opposition to President Trump, and in 2016 he offered to donate $5 million to veterans’ groups if Mr. Trump released his tax returns.


http://archive.li/d90xQ#selection-361.0-477.162


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/eureka-local-news/organizers-cancel-womens-march-jan-19-due-to-overwhelmingly-white-participants


:yeahyeah

Love when identity politics turns racist, because it always does and always makes for a good laugh. "We want to march to make stuff better but..Too many white people so it's cancelled" I love this time in history. :laugh:


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I *love* it when Jesse talks aliens. :mark:


----------



## Draykorinee

Wondered how long till someone shared a video from the human/alien hybrid PJW.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078279155412656128


The Obamas have been named the most admired Man and Woman by Americans. I think this tweet about sums it up:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078385385707917312
These are our role models these days. Sigh.

Women's March event canceled over concerns of being 'overwhelmingly white'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/or...-in-northern-california-because-its-too-white



> Organizers of a Women’s March rally slated for Northern California next month have canceled the event, saying they were concerned that participants would have been “overwhelmingly white."
> 
> In a news release, organizers for the march in Eureka – about 270 miles north of San Francisco – said Friday the "decision was made after many conversations between local social-change organizers and supporters of the march.”
> 
> “Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community,” the news release continued.
> 
> According to Census Bureau data from July, Humboldt County, where Eureka is the county seat, is 74 percent non-Hispanic white.
> 
> “I was appalled to be honest,” Amy Sawyer Long told the Washington Times. “I understand wanting a diverse group. However, we live in a predominantly white area … not to mention how is it beneficial to cancel? No matter the race people still want their voices heard.”
> 
> ...


:banderas


----------



## virus21




----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078279155412656128
> 
> 
> The Obamas have been named the most admired Man and Woman by Americans. I think this tweet about sums it up:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078385385707917312
> These are our role models these days. Sigh.


Didn't even include the illegal spying, various other scandals or helping ISIS grow. Obama being admired doesn't surprise me, it goes to show you how stupid the average American is.



virus21 said:


>


Yup this video ties into the whole Obama thing. 

Wonder how long before people like Jimmy Dore are blanket banned from Social Media? Oh but those are private companies, can do whatever and it's justified.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Wonder how long before people like Jimmy Dore are blanket banned from Social Media? Oh but those are private companies, can do whatever and it's justified.


They are private companies though and can do whatever.

Whether its justified is another matter entirely.


----------



## CamillePunk

The identitarian left is mad about some of Louis CK's new jokes. 

https://www.tmz.com/2018/12/30/louis-ck-parkland-victims-kids-leaked-audio-new-stand-up/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079538170960572416
Fucking loved it, myself. :lol Hope he puts out another special soon!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079734725323964417
I predict she gets 1/1024th of the vote.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Parkland parents have said vile things about people who disagree with them, their children have done the same, they've all gotten their knobs slobbed endlessly for being *so brave* to speak out with 95% of the news and entertainment and cultural media of the country and powerful politicians cheering them on and defending them, and they can't handle being mocked :bryanlol

The deadly earnestness of fascism on full display. They can be abusive. They can't be abused. Because fuck you that's why


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Parkland parents have said vile things about people who disagree with them, their children have done the same, they've all gotten their knobs slobbed endlessly for being *so brave* to speak out with 95% of the news and entertainment and cultural media of the country and powerful politicians cheering them on and defending them, and they can't handle being mocked :bryanlol
> 
> The deadly earnestness of fascism on full display. They can be abusive. They can't be abused. Because fuck you that's why


And eventually the media will cast them aside, like they do everyone else.

And Warren is really planning for the presidency? Oh god, get out the popcorn


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079802194436739072
WHAT WILL THEY DO WITHOUT US


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079802194436739072
> WHAT WILL THEY DO WITHOUT US


Kill each other

Same as they do with us


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> They are private companies though and can do whatever.
> 
> Whether its justified is another matter entirely.


I think we're at an crossroads where Facebook, Twitter etc are too big and should be considered public speaking forums. I know people love to shout how they're private companies when they ban someone they don't like but when they crack down on people like Dore they freak out.

Besides a few companies have tried to do their own thing but have been hindered by behind the scenes fuckery from other companies. You have major companies working together to shut down any competition to the biggest Social Media giants.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/12/louis-ck-leaked-tape/579220/

Louis CK's new sets are literally the same kind of comedy he's always done which made him so famous. :lol They want him to just come out and cry on the mic and share his feelings because they think that's what makes good "comedy" these days.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/12/louis-ck-leaked-tape/579220/
> 
> Louis CK's new sets are literally the same kind of comedy he's always done which made him so famous. :lol They want him to just come out and cry on the mic and share his feelings because they think that's what makes good "comedy" these days.


:shrug I thought the jokes were pretty funny. 

Why we gotta listen to the Parkland kids? Because they were the ones who pushed a fat kid in front of the bullets? :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080121129220669440
Fire up the helicopters. :lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Fire up the Air America jets to ship cocaine into the US to pay for the helicopters :ha


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080249118054727680
Don't even let any corporatist tool tell you that any corporation stands for anything except for Profit.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/waymo-self-driving-cars-arizona-attacks.html






The Butlerian Jihad has begun :zayn3

The machines will not conquer humanity :thecause


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080249118054727680
> Don't even let any corporatist tool tell you that any corporation stands for anything except for Profit.


A few years ago I posted an article that for the show "House of Cards" they brought on staff from CAIR to oversee the episodes written on extremism.. :laugh:

You know.. the same organization that had/has ties to organizations that fund extremist groups. 

Also food for thought, Netflix considers itself, "woke".. well unless you toss money at them. :x


----------



## V. Skybox

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080249118054727680
> Don't even let any corporatist tool tell you that any corporation stands for anything except for Profit.


Clickbait. It's removed in KSA only. If you want to have a problem with something, have a problem with their repressive laws.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



V. Skybox said:


> Clickbait. It's removed in KSA only. If you want to have a problem with something, have a problem with their repressive laws.


True. I guess IBM was only doing business with Hitler when they gave him computers to track the Jews. It's just business :shrug

We shouldn't hold capitalists to any sort of high ideal. Even when they claim to be woke themselves. 

Money is the real god. Principles should never get in the way of making money!


----------



## V. Skybox

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> True. I guess IBM was only doing business with Hitler when they gave him computers to track the Jews. It's just business :shrug
> 
> We shouldn't hold capitalists to any sort of high ideal. Even when they claim to be woke themselves.
> 
> Money is the real god. Principles should never get in the way of making money!


I'm amazed you think that "complying with a local law" is in any way the same as "actively collaborating with the oppressive regime in their attempts to cause genocide".

I'm not one to defend capitalists, at all. But your shots are misaimed in this case.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



V. Skybox said:


> I'm amazed you think that "complying with a local law" is in any way the same as "actively collaborating with the oppressive regime in their attempts to cause genocide".
> 
> I'm not one to defend capitalists, at all. But your shots are misaimed in this case.


Are you kidding me or are you just clueless about the fact that KSA is engaged in an ethnocide (across muslim countries and especially in Yemen) and American Capitalists are not doing a damned thing about it. In fact, "complying with local law" in order to continue to get their cut of the Saudi money. 

IBM are "collaborators" only in retrospect. When the actual crimes were happening, not a damned thing was done to stop American companies from doing business with Hitler. Not a damn thing.

If any of these companies actually had their morals in the right place, they'd stop doing business with KSA entirely.


----------



## V. Skybox

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Are you kidding me or are you just clueless about the fact that KSA is engaged in an ethnocide and American Capitalists are not doing a damned thing about it. In fact, "complying with local law" in order to continue to get their cut of the Saudi money.
> 
> IBM are "collaborators" only in retrospect. When the actual crimes were happening, not a damned thing was done to stop American companies from doing business with Hitler. Not a damn thing.


What do you suggest businesses (who are not the ones in direct power in any relevant democratic country) do to overturn these issues? And don't say pull out of KSA. They're fine. They make their own money.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



V. Skybox said:


> What do you suggest businesses (who are not the ones in direct power in any relevant democratic country) do to overturn these issues? And don't say pull out of KSA. They're fine. They make their own money.


It's not about hurting Saudis with "money". It's about not being moralistic hypocrites where they whine about being "woke" in the US with regards to Social Justice while dipping into blood money where they can. 

But that's corporatism for you. We won't change the way our companies do business unless we realize what our own morals ought to be. 

It's also very hypocritical that Americans are incredibly selective about their outrage and sanctions as well. It's all connected to an over-arching theme of blatant hypocrisy.

------------

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/...sting-uncomfortably-honest-tweet-46b0cd543868


> *US Military Apologizes For Posting Uncomfortably Honest Tweet*
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079881433072717824
> US Strategic Command (or “Stratcom” if you’re trying to make a nuclear-capable arm of the US Defense Department sound cool) has issued an apology for a poorly received New Year’s Eve tweet which has since been deleted.
> 
> *“#TimesSquare tradition rings in the #NewYear by dropping the big ball…if ever needed, we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger,” the offending tweet read, with an attached video featuring B-2 stealth bombers flying all stealth bombery and causing gigantic explosions with bunker buster bombs while words like “STEALTH”, “READY”, and “LETHAL” flashed across the screen. The tweet concluded with the ostensibly unironic hashtag “#PeaceIsOurProfession”.
> *
> “Our previous NYE tweet was in poor taste & does not reflect our values,” Strategic Command tweeted. “We apologize. We are dedicated to the security of America & allies.”
> 
> This statement is, obviously, a lie. The part about “security” of course, because dominating the globe with nonstop military violence and aggression has nothing to do with security, but also the “does not reflect our values” part. The US military deleted the post and apologized for it because it received an angry backlash from hundreds of commenters and was circulated virally on Twitter for its jarringly creepy message, not because it did not reflect their values. It reflected their values perfectly. The only way you could possibly encapsulate the US military’s values in a 42-second video clip more perfectly than cramming it full of footage of $2,000,000,000 war planes cruising around dropping $3,500,000 GBU-57 bombs would be to also show the human bodies they land on being ripped to pieces. Inflicting death and destruction using unfathomably expensive machinery is the US military’s whole job. Of course it reflects their values.
> 
> The real issue here was not values but perception. The US war machine pours an immense amount of energy into perception management, making sure that ordinary Americans either (A) ignore the horrific things that are being done in their name or (B) think that those things are awesome and patriotic. The offending post was clearly attempting to accomplish (B). A team of paid social media propagandists simply did not understand that ordinary human beings wouldn’t resonate with a message that amounts to “Hey I see you’re all preparing to bring in the new year, so watch how good we are at killing large numbers of people!”, and some damage control became necessary when everyone got freaked out. Can’t have people opening their eyes to how insane America’s relentless military expansionism has gotten, after all.
> 
> Watching the propaganda arm of the US-centralized war machine is a lot like watching a manipulative sociopath learning how to function in normal society. Sometimes they’ll slip up and fail to react the way someone with a healthy sense of empathy would respond to the death of a pet or someone’s emotions or whatever, and they risk alienating whoever’s around them and losing access to the resources they could exploit them for if they can’t manipulate them out of the creeped-out feeling people get when they’re around someone who doesn’t empathize like a normal human being. I suspect many of the commenters who flooded in telling Stratcom to delete its tweet were not so much interested in eliminating a violent social media post from the internet, but in eliminating that creeped-out feeling you get when the sociopath’s mask slips a bit.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079882947535073280
> And that’s understandable. One of the biggest obstacles in getting people to realize how deeply propagandized they are is the cognitive dissonance which comes rushing in when one considers the implications of viewing the world free from the lens of military psychological manipulations. Without the lies about how beneficent and necessary and awesome the military is, all you’ve got is trillions of dollars worth of instruments of death circling the globe to facilitate the daily slaughter of men, women and children to advance agendas of power and profit while ordinary people struggle just to get by in your own country. It can be deeply psychologically uncomfortable to grapple with the reality of what that means for your beliefs about your nation, your society and your very identity, in much the same way realizing you married a manipulative sociopath can be an uncomfortable truth one might feel tempted to compartmentalize away from.
> 
> A lot of people got upset about that tweet, but they really shouldn’t have. The tweet was not the problem; it was just a few perception managers for the US military being more honest and straightforward than usual. The problem is that money is being stolen from ordinary Americans to murder strangers on the other side of the planet to advance agendas of power and profit, and everyone’s being propagandized into accepting that as normal. The sociopathic propaganda engine slipping up and stirring the populace from their slumber a bit is nothing to complain about, the actual reality of our actual situation is.


Maybe they SHOULD release more videos like these. Seriously. It would be the best thing to ever happen to the american anti-war movement. 

So if you're in the military and have access to military propaganda, please I beg you. Share it. So that people can finally discover what's going on half way around the world.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

People are getting their shit fucked up 

Not a secret

The concept of mystification is one of the silliest Marxist mistakes


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Criticizing Netflix or any business for doing business in Saudi Arabia is completely fair. I guess the counter-argument would be that what content they are allowed to distribute there could still influence people in a positive direction, even if blatantly critical content isn't allowed. Anyway, tons of businesses make ideological choices knowing it'll hurt their bottom line, so trying to generalize based on this story just reeks of pushing an agenda.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Sorry it's too hard for you to go beyond your twitter level bumper sticker ideologies, but corporatism by definition is a system where the only thing that matters is profit ergo they do not care about your petty little social issues unless it helps them earn more profit. It's a cost/benefit and the benefit calculation only includes the benefit to the organization until it's no longer beneficial for that corporation - but by that time it's usually too late.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Eh you guys are treading down a slippery slope. 

Do you pay attention to where all of _your_ money is going? You don't think you've ever voluntarily given money to evil corporations that have done some truly horrible things?

If the U.S. made a major economic decision and ceased partnership with a foreign country out of 'moral obligation'... would you also be willing to sacrifice and shoulder that burden? This might be an extreme example but say hypothetically that the price of gas or electronics went up 40-50% as a result. Would you still be on board?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Eh you guys are treading down a slippery slope.
> 
> Do you pay attention to where all of _your_ money is going? You don't think you've ever voluntarily given money to evil corporations that have done some truly horrible things?


It's really not as simple as you're making it out to be. When the economy is as monopolized as it is now, sometimes basic survival is dependent on goods from vile corporations. The answer is not to give up and die. The answer is to change the system.



> If the U.S. made a major economic decision and ceased partnership with a foreign country out of 'moral obligation'... would you also be willing to sacrifice and shoulder that burden? This might be an extreme example but say hypothetically that the price of gas or electronics went up 40-50% as a result. Would you still be on board?


Yes, I would be on board. But again, you've grossly oversimplified the situation. If we cut all ties with Saudi Arabia, maybe the price of gas would go up but we should turn that into a gain by investing in renewable energy sources which would be cheaper in the long run. If we stopped buying electronics from China, the price of TVs might go up but we should be building them in the USA anyways. That creates a stronger middle class in the USA. It's not as simple as cutting ties with one country and doing nothing to change things in our own.

I would argue that we shouldn't be completely dependent on other countries for anything. Ever. The USA has the people and the resources available to be a completely self-sustaining nation. I'm not entirely opposed to trade with other nations but it should be as a luxury, not out of necessity. The reason we haven't done this is because capitalism always demands higher profits over what is best for society. It's better for the people of the USA to live off things made in the USA but capitalists prefer the higher profits of paying slave wages around the globe. That's why the people should be making these decisions instead of a handful of elite. It's a safe bet that the factory worker from Ohio wouldn't vote to ship his own job overseas.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> It's really not as simple as you're making it out to be. When the economy is as monopolized as it is now, sometimes basic survival is dependent on goods from vile corporations. The answer is not to give up and die. The answer is to change the system.


You can only change the system from within, one person at a time. A system is a reflection of it's people. Be the change you want to see.

You always have a choice. Apple is a very seedy company and everyone knows it but I don't see people rushing to give up their iphones.



Tater said:


> Yes, I would be on board. But again, you've grossly oversimplified the situation. If we cut all ties with Saudi Arabia, maybe *the price of gas would go up* but we should turn that into a gain by investing in renewable energy sources which would be cheaper in the long run. If we stopped buying electronics from China, the price of TVs might go up but we should be building them in the USA anyways. That creates a stronger middle class in the USA. It's not as simple as cutting ties with one country and doing nothing to change things in our own.


That's all you needed to say. If the president does something that causes the price of gas to go up they are going to get hammered. The same people begging not to do business with the Saudis would be blaming him for the state of the economy. And not just the media but the people as well. Nobody wants to see the price of gas to go up. Good luck trying to sell that as a net positive. The average person doesn't even care about Saudi Arabia, they care about being able to drive.



Tater said:


> I would argue that we shouldn't be completely dependent on other countries for anything. Ever. The USA has the people and the resources available to be a completely self-sustaining nation. I'm not entirely opposed to trade with other nations but it should be as a luxury, not out of necessity. *The reason we haven't done this is because capitalism always demands higher profits over what is best for society.* It's better for the people of the USA to live off things made in the USA but capitalists prefer the higher profits of paying slave wages around the globe. That's why the people should be making these decisions instead of a handful of elite. It's a safe bet that the factory worker from Ohio wouldn't vote to ship his own job overseas.


That is not capitalism, that is human nature. That is who we are. We don't feed on each other and we don't look to hurt one another but ultimately we aren't going to make hefty sacrifices for random strangers.

Let's say you want to have 5000 signs made. You call a local sign shop and he says him and his 2 employees can have them done for you in a week and it's going to cost $5000. Then you call another local manufacturer and he says he has this expensive machine that does the same thing only much faster and he can do it for $3500 because he doesn't have to pay any employees. Same exact job, same results, costs less. 

Would you choose to save on $1500, or would you think of the poor employees at that other shop.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> You can only change the system from within, one person at a time. A system is a reflection of it's people. Be the change you want to see.


I never took you for a hippie. :lol



> You always have a choice. Apple is a very seedy company and everyone knows it but I don't see people rushing to give up their iphones.


Not everything in life is an iphone. Sometimes you've got a sick kid and the only option to save their life is to buy drugs from a vile pharma corp. Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to force people to "choose" between giving money to a vile pharma corp and letting their kid die, I'm calling bullshit on your entire ideology.



> That's all you needed to say. If the president does something that causes the price of gas to go up they are going to get hammered. The same people begging not to do business with the Saudis would be blaming him for the state of the economy. And not just the media but the people as well. Nobody wants to see the price of gas to go up. Good luck trying to sell that as a net positive. The average person doesn't even care about Saudi Arabia, they care about being able to drive.


What part about make changes to domestic policy to offset the changes from foreign policy did you not understand?



> That is not capitalism, that is human nature. That is who we are. We don't feed on each other and we don't look to hurt one another but ultimately we aren't going to make hefty sacrifices for random strangers.


Horseshit. Maybe you're a sociopath but most people are not. Most people don't have the desire to screw over everyone else just to get themselves ahead.



> Let's say you want to have 5000 signs made. You call a local sign shop and he says him and his 2 employees can have them done for you in a week and it's going to cost $5000. Then you call another local manufacturer and he says he has this expensive machine that does the same thing only much faster and he can do it for $3500 because he doesn't have to pay any employees. Same exact job, same results, costs less.
> 
> Would you choose to save on $1500, or would you think of the poor employees at that other shop.


Your quaint fantasies about competition in a free market are childlike in their innocence but they have no bearing on how things work in the real world.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> It's really not as simple as you're making it out to be. When the economy is as monopolized as it is now, sometimes basic survival is dependent on goods from vile corporations. The answer is not to give up and die. The answer is to change the system.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would be on board. But again, you've grossly oversimplified the situation. If we cut all ties with Saudi Arabia, maybe the price of gas would go up but we should turn that into a gain by investing in renewable energy sources which would be cheaper in the long run. If we stopped buying electronics from China, the price of TVs might go up but we should be building them in the USA anyways. That creates a stronger middle class in the USA. It's not as simple as cutting ties with one country and doing nothing to change things in our own.
> 
> I would argue that we shouldn't be completely dependent on other countries for anything. Ever. The USA has the people and the resources available to be a completely self-sustaining nation. I'm not entirely opposed to trade with other nations but it should be as a luxury, not out of necessity. The reason we haven't done this is because capitalism always demands higher profits over what is best for society. It's better for the people of the USA to live off things made in the USA but capitalists prefer the higher profits of paying slave wages around the globe. That's why the people should be making these decisions instead of a handful of elite. It's a safe bet that the factory worker from Ohio wouldn't vote to ship his own job overseas.


It is monopolized, like I stated with Twitter, Facebook etc, people have built alternatives and each time they were fucked with by other Companies. Gab was hit by PayPal in some virtue signaling nonsense, it's like really? PayPal? Like if we looked at PayPal we wouldn't find some pretty disgusting people and Companies using their service? But it wasn't about that.

Google, GoDaddy, Patreon etc have all targeted people, well not surprising since Google was caught manipulating information and searches. Yet these companies can do whatever suits them. 

As for your TV example, we used to build TVs, we used to build a lot of things. At one time "Made in America" meant quality, the cycle was workers make the products, it's sold within and people get access to what they need. It worked. Then Capitalist fuckery came about, Asian companies started practicing "dumping", drove American companies into bankruptcy or to make inferior products and by the time the Government stepped in, it was already too late. 

Now we have a society addicted to cheap, disposable garbage products. I mean we have legit slave labor going on when it comes to our food production but nobody cares, as long as it stays cheap. :shrug


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I never took you for a hippie. :lol
> 
> Not everything in life is an iphone. Sometimes you've got a sick kid and the only option to save their life is to buy drugs from a vile pharma corp. Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to force people to "choose" between giving money to a vile pharma corp and letting their kid die, I'm calling bullshit on your entire ideology.
> 
> *You don't have control over big pharma especially if you're sick, but you do have control over what kind of phone you use and which companies you choose to do business with on a day to day basis. Whether it's Wal-mart, McDonalds, Apple, Amazon, Google, Disney, Nike... all of those companies have dirt but I bet that didn't stop you from giving them your money last year. *
> 
> Horseshit. Maybe you're a sociopath but most people are not. Most people don't have the desire to screw over everyone else just to get themselves ahead.
> 
> Your quaint fantasies about competition in a free market are childlike in their innocence but they have no bearing on how things work in the real world.
> 
> *It's real telling you chose not to answer the question. I guess I have no choice but to assume you'd 'screw over' those employees because you want what's best for your own pocket.*


Bolded.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> It is monopolized, like I stated with Twitter, Facebook etc, people have built alternatives and each time they were fucked with by other Companies. Gab was hit by PayPal in some virtue signaling nonsense, it's like really? PayPal? Like if we looked at PayPal we wouldn't find some pretty disgusting people and Companies using their service? But it wasn't about that.
> 
> Google, GoDaddy, Patreon etc have all targeted people, well not surprising since Google was caught manipulating information and searches. Yet these companies can do whatever suits them.


This is the reality that the free marketeers refuse to acknowledge when they say if you don't like it, start your own business. The monopoly powers of these corporations is so strong that they will crush the competition before it becomes a real threat. Simply deciding to use alternatives sounds nice in theory but it does not work out that way in practice; not on any mass scale, at least.



> As for your TV example, we used to build TVs, we used to build a lot of things. At one time "Made in America" meant quality, the cycle was workers make the products, it's sold within and people get access to what they need. It worked. Then Capitalist fuckery came about, Asian companies started practicing "dumping", drove American companies into bankruptcy or to make inferior products and by the time the Government stepped in, it was already too late.
> 
> Now we have a society addicted to cheap, disposable garbage products. I mean we have legit slave labor going on when it comes to our food production but nobody cares, as long as it stays cheap. :shrug


People care more than they are given credit for. It's just that so much of the economy has been monopolized that people don't have a lot of choice in the matter. Pay the people so little that they cannot afford anything from anywhere else but Wal-Mart, then they are coerced into buying things from Wal-Mart. The system is designed that way.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Bolded.


Learn how to use the quote function.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080608079106981889
:nerd:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Pocahontas 2020:










:ha


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080608079106981889
> :nerd:


Playing the identity card and going on the show of the biggest raving lunatic in this country. Hard pass.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Come on now, this might be the episode where Maddow reveals a secret recording of :trump from 1983 talking about his first blowjob from a Russian model which DEFINITELY PROVES :trump colluded with a Russian during THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR... to have an orgasm *gasp*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Come on now, this might be the episode where Maddow reveals a secret recording of :trump from 1983 talking about his first blowjob from a Russian model which DEFINITELY PROVES :trump colluded with a Russian during THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR... to have an orgasm *gasp*


BREAKING NEWS: In 1978 Donald Trump had dinner at a restaurant and his waitress's 3rd cousin's best friend was the descendant Stalin's gardener and this proves Trump is Putin's puppet.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> BREAKING NEWS: In 1978 Donald Trump had dinner at a restaurant and his waitress's 3rd cousin's best friend was the descendant Stalin's gardener and this proves Trump is Putin's puppet.


You realize your post is going to be the key supporting document in a secret FISA warrant application to the secret FISA court by the end of next week at the latest right


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> You realize your post is going to be the key supporting document in a secret FISA warrant application to the secret FISA court by the end of next week at the latest right


What I know is that I stubbed my toe in the 2nd grade and it was definitely the fault of the goddamned Russians. :cuss:


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Draykorinee

> Speaking on the Today show on Thursday, she reiterated: "Nothing for the wall."
> 
> "There is no amount of persuasion he can do to say to us, 'We want you to do something that is not effective, that costs billions of dollars,'" she said.


Never stopped them starting and/or continuing unnecessary wars.

"That sends the wrong message about who we are as a country."


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Learn how to use the quote function.


That's twice now you've dodged the question. Yes or no would you pay the extra $1500 so that those workers can have a job, or you would you rather save that $1500 and hire the guy with the machine.

Because by your definition wanting to save money is equal to being a sociopath.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> In November, not long after Amazon announced that it would build its second headquarters in New York City and northern Virginia, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the newly elected representative from Queens and the Bronx, tweeted that she’d been getting calls from residents all day. “The community’s response?” she wrote. “Outrage.” Amazon, as legal scholars were quick to point out, had become a monopoly so powerful it was using its economic heft to exploit not only competitors and suppliers, but entire states. New York and Virginia had agreed to subsidize helipads for Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos; Virginia even promised to help the company fight Freedom of Information Act requests.
> Most Popular
> 
> Why Aren’t Democrats Standing Up for Low-Wage Government Workers?
> Elizabeth Warren’s Theory of Everything
> A Database Showed Far-Right Terror on the Rise. Then Trump Defunded It.
> How to Oppose Fascism
> Jailed, Raped, Deported, Robbed
> 
> It would be easy to assume that most of the objections to Amazon’s HQ2 deal would come from the left. Senator Elizabeth Warren was, after all, one of the first politicians to criticize Amazon for monopolistic practices, arguing that the e-commerce giant and companies like it had eroded what was once a “strong, robust middle class.” But disdain for corporate concentration is one of the rare things in contemporary American politics that transcends ideological divisions.
> 
> Take Montana Senator Jon Tester, one of only two Democrats in the Senate to be reelected in a blood red state. Last year, he attacked the secretary of agriculture, complaining that meatpackers continue to “exploit farmers and ranchers” by manipulating the price they pay for livestock. Even corporate-friendly Democrats can sound downright populist on the subject. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, a former venture capitalist who made his $200 million fortune off early cell phone technology, has emerged as a leading critic of the tech giants, noting how they kill competition and threaten national security.
> 
> Opposition to monopoly also brings the left and the center together with unlikely allies. Perhaps the most power*ful critique of corporate concentration in recent months has come from The Economist, which has attacked the American antitrust establishment for laxness. And when Ocasio-Cortez spoke out against the Amazon deal, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board and the National Review both praised her. “I hate to admit it, but Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a very good point,” said Fox News’s Tucker Carlson. “It’s hard to argue with the internal logic.... The richest man in the world just got $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies. How does that work?”
> 
> Monopolies penetrate al**most every sector of the U.S. economy, airlines to pharmaceuticals, candy to coffins, often leading to unfair prices, lower wages, or both. Facebook and Google have so much power in the advertising market—they control 66 percent of online ad revenue—that they are undermining newspapers. Two companies make 64 percent of American diapers, one company builds 52 percent of America’s mobile homes, two companies produce 78 percent of its corn seeds, and one company assembles 61 percent of syringes.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s, policymakers came to believe that big businesses were big not because they had market power, but because they’d been efficiently managed. That view only began to change after the financial crisis: In 2010, journalist and scholar Barry Lynn published Cornered, the first serious attempt in decades to reassess the prevailing wisdom on antitrust, as laid out in the 1970s by the conservative scholar Robert Bork. Lynn and two of his colleagues at the New America Foundation, Phillip Longman and Lina Khan, began publishing articles in the Washington Monthly highlighting how monopolies had stifled innovation, hurt small businesses, lowered wage and job growth, and widened the yawning gap between rural and urban areas. (Lynn, Longman, and Khan are colleagues of mine at the Open Markets Institute.) Their ideas broke into national politics in 2016. Warren gave her landmark speech against monopoly power at a New America event that June; Hillary Clinton quietly inserted an antitrust plank into the Democratic platform in July; and Donald Trump attacked the AT&T-Time Warner merger just before the election, saying it was “too much concentration of power in the hands of too few.”
> Get the latest from TNR. Sign up for the newsletter.
> 
> Republicans have turned against monopolies, as well. They have their own tradition of trust busting, though it’s often overlooked: Friedrich Hayek of the Chicago School attacked monopoly as an insidious form of collectivism in his 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom. So when Tester attacked consolidation in big ag, Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley joined him. When Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked a simple yet devastating question: “Who’s your biggest competitor?” Cory Booker has attacked concentrated power among meatpackers with Utah’s conservative Senator Mike Lee. And Georgia Republican Doug Collins has stood up for independent pharmacists against big chains like CVS.
> 
> The corporate world is also rethinking its ideas about concentration. Google and Facebook have appropriated advertising revenue from Rupert Murdoch of News Corp. (As News Corp’s CEO, Robert Thomson, put it in June, “If journalism were a film, the last decade is certainly the equivalent of a slasher movie—the Silicon Valley Chainsaw Massacre.”) Amazon poses an existential threat to Walmart, FedEx, UPS, Target, and cloud computing competitors. Several of these companies are beginning to organize against Amazon, working, for example, to prevent it from getting a $10 billion cloud computing contract from the Pentagon. It goes beyond tech; the Securities and Exchange Commission recently blocked monopolistic stock exchanges from charging higher fees to traders for market data, with support from none other than Goldman Sachs.
> 
> These shifts—among lawmakers and private companies—mean that when the new Congress convenes, Democrats will have an opportunity to act.
> 
> It’s often said that monopoly is a technical issue best addressed by the courts and economists. But laws exist to prevent concentration: the Sherman Act, for one. The trouble is that courts and the antitrust agencies have sub*verted these laws by making enforcement complicated, and the main enforcers—the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division—*frequently refuse to bring cases.
> 
> To begin, Congress could make mergers much harder to complete. Right now, to stop a merger, the government has to prove that it would “substantially” reduce competition. The burden of proof, especially in a concentrated market, should instead fall to the corporation seeking to buy a competitor. Similarly, any merger that offers an executive a golden parachute (like the $70 million Aetna’s CEO Mark Bertolini got for selling his company to CVS, or the $33 million Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant received when he sold his company to Bayer) could be made harder.
> 
> Congress has another key tool: oversight. Legislators could explore Amazon’s model of eliminating competition by pricing goods at below cost, and its practice of manipulating its marketplace to prioritize its own private-label products. Congress could look into the economy of rural America, focusing on meatpackers, seed giants, and transportation giants. Legis*lators could investigate collusion and wage suppression in labor markets through noncompete clauses and unfair contractual arrangements such as arbitration clauses.
> 
> Congress also has a say in how the law is enforced. It could give federal funds not to the two deeply compromised institutions that are supposed to enforce antitrust law, but to state attorneys general, who have already proved they can bring cases. (It was, for instance, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and a coalition of state enforcers who first brought antitrust charges against Microsoft in the 1990s.)
> 
> The boldest solution would be for Congress to begin restructuring industries directly. Historically, the federal government has often intervened when an industry became too concentrated, its leaders wielding undue power in the market. In the 1930s, Congress broke up banks, electric utilities, and aerospace companies. Within the last five years, financial regulators essentially forced General Electric to sell off its financial services arm, and the Federal Reserve, encouraged by Senator Sherrod Brown, pressured banks to divest their commodities-trading operations.
> 
> Former enforcers, like Bush FTC Chairman Timothy Muris, like to warn about the “disastrous consequences” of assertive antitrust enforcement. But it’s actually not all that hard to break up companies. Often, it just means reversing a merger the government shouldn’t have allowed in the first place, like Facebook’s purchase of Instagram or WhatsApp, or Google’s purchase of DoubleClick, YouTube, or AdMob. Wall Street does it all the time. Spinning off divisions can be good business; earlier this year, Citibank research analyst Mark May encouraged Amazon to split its cloud computing division from its retail arm.
> 
> The benefits of a more assertive Congress would be profound. To take just one industry, Congress could save the average American family $10,000 each year by implementing straightforward health care pricing rules that would have all medical providers paid at Medicare prices. Now imagine if it fought corporate concentration across the economy.


https://newrepublic.com/article/152680/one-issue-left-right-can-agree


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The American "Left" i.e. the center to center right democrats (which control the _majority _of the party) have _convinced _people that they are a leftist party when they are a center right party when it comes to economics - which is why they never touch banks or major corporations and in fact even in major "blue" states continue to vote in favor of corporate rights. 

So I don't think that the American left or right can agree. Not in the conventional sense of what makes up the right and left. 

You don't get to redefine what the left is just so you can create a false opponent to fool people in elections. But I guess in America anything is possible :Shrug


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> That's twice now you've dodged the question. Yes or no would you pay the extra $1500 so that those workers can have a job, or you would you rather save that $1500 and hire the guy with the machine.
> 
> Because by your definition wanting to save money is equal to being a sociopath.


Don't ask retarded questions if you want serious responses. There is no sign shop offering the same services as another for 1500 less because a mega corporation already crushed the mom and pop sign shops and doubled the price. Then they bought the politicians to make sure no other sign shops can start their own businesses.

Your fantasies about small businesses in a competitive free market have no bearing on the monopolized economy we find ourselves living in.



Reaper said:


> The American "Left" i.e. the center to center right democrats (which control the _majority _of the party) have _convinced _people that they are a leftist party when they are a center right party when it comes to economics - which is why they never touch banks or major corporations and in fact even in major "blue" states continue to vote in favor of corporate rights.
> 
> So I don't think that the American left or right can agree. Not in the conventional sense of what makes up the right and left.
> 
> You don't get to redefine what the left is just so you can create a false opponent to fool people in elections. But I guess in America anything is possible :Shrug


The USA, where moderate Republicans are called leftists and an actual centrist gets called radical far left crazy cuckoo bird.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The USA, where moderate Republicans are called leftists and an actual centrist gets called radical far left crazy cuckoo bird.


I've seen people call Hillary Clinton a "leftist" 

:kobelol

Problem is that America has been conservative since the Raegan era and the democrats in order to win the elections have consistently moved farther and farther to the right meaning that everything that has happened to America in the last several decades is a result of conservative policy-making and compromises by the democrats - meanwhile the actual progressive / leftist movement has nothing but corporate shills (who are by and large centrists) to rely on. 

It has no real representation in America. 

Every little move to the left invokes a renewed red scare in america so while the country continues to decline under the sheer weight of conservative policy decision making, the progressives constantly get blamed for it :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Isn't everyone just so happy for Nancy Pelosi and her legacy? After all, that's what politics is all about. :nerd:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Since the test of the national all the cell phone numbers are in the government's files alert system, I've been pretty disappointed that we haven't gotten regular updates on the daily national emergencies at the White House

Like

*** THIS IS NOT A TEST ***

THE PRESIDENT DID NOT GET HIS SECOND SCOOP TONIGHT AT DINNER. TARIFFS HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED ON ALL FOREIGN ICEMAKING MACHINES AND TANNING CREAMS UNTIL "THOSE ICEY, CREAMY BASTARDS GIVE US A FAIR DEAL ON TRADE."

*** NATIONAL ALERT SYSTEM ***

THE PRESIDENT IS REALLY UPSET THAT MACRON DOESN'T LOOK AT HIM AS DREAMY AS TRUDEAU DOES. THE PRESIDENT REALLY REALLY really WANTED TO MAKE THEM JEALOUS OF EACH OTHER. OF COURSE, YOU REALIZE, THIS MEANS WAR. 

*** SUPER CEREAL ***


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/269488770066313216
"Hypnotize". Just a reminder that the MSM's darling new Muslim congresswoman is an actual anti-Semite. Diversity tho. :nerd: Islam is just a religion, no different than Christianity or Judaism. :nerd:


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Isn't everyone just so happy for Nancy Pelosi and her legacy? After all, that's what politics is all about. :nerd:


I'm more amused than anything else at the people who considers themselves on the left and are actually celebrating a moderate Republican being the speaker. It's almost as funny as those on the right who are bemoaning a "leftist" getting the gavel. TDS creates strange politics.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

"Everyone that doesn't blindly worship corporatism is a communist that wants to kill you in your sleep and throw your family into a gulag" is basically American politics in a nutshell.

I cannot think of a single politician in congress right now that has any kind of genuine anger or fire directed towards corporate monopolies and is actively fighting for labor rights over corporate rights. 

There is no real culture war. Just an artificially created one that ultimately only benefits corporations. Gains by workers are miniscule. They buy their lifestyles on credit and pretend that they have money. I don't remember who said this, but someone said that almost all Americans are literally 6 months pay checks away from complete and utter ruin and the majority of that group is 2 weeks' paychecks removed from homelessness and eviction. 

You know why we have things like "credit relief"? ... It's not some major corporate mercy on us. We have "credit relief" because the bankers know that their source of money is interest payments and in order to make money they have to pretend to care about the middle class struggle. On the one hand they have to make sure that people can buy stuff, but that stuff should never be cheap enough to ensure that Americans can buy it without paying interest and on the other, they have to make sure that americans are kept away from complete financial ruin so that they can continue to make those credit payments all of their lives. 

Get rid of the credit system and you'll fix quite a lot of socio-economic problems. Over-charging happens because people are allowed credit to buy things they can't on their paychecks.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080954496379994113
If women ruled the world there would be no war. :nerd:


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> *Sexism Claims From Bernie Sanders’s 2016 Run: Paid Less, Treated Worse*
> 
> In February 2016, Giulianna Di Lauro, a Latino outreach strategist for Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential operation, complained to her supervisor that she had been harassed by a campaign surrogate whom she drove to events ahead of the Democratic primary in Nevada.
> 
> She said the surrogate told her she had “beautiful curly hair” and asked if he could touch it, Ms. Di Lauro said in an interview. Thinking he would just touch a strand, she consented. But she said that he ran his hand through her hair in a “sexual way” and continued to grab, touch and “push my boundaries” for the rest of the day.
> 
> “I just wanted to be done with it so badly,” she said.
> 
> When she reported the incident to Bill Velazquez, a manager on the Latino outreach team, he told her, “I bet you would have liked it if he were younger,” according to her account and another woman who witnessed the exchange. Then he laughed.
> 
> Accounts like Ms. Di Lauro’s — describing episodes of sexual harassment and demeaning treatment as well as pay disparity in Mr. Sanders’s 2016 campaign — have circulated in recent weeks in emails, online comments and private discussions among former supporters. Now, as the Vermont senator tries to build support for a second run at the White House, his perceived failure to address this issue has damaged his progressive bona fides, delegates and nearly a dozen former state and national staff members said in interviews over the last month.
> 
> And it has raised questions among them about whether he can adequately fight for the interests of women, who have increasingly defined the Democratic Party in the Trump era, if he runs again for the presidential nomination in 2020.
> 
> The former staff members said complaints about mistreatment and pay disparity during and just after the campaign reached some senior leaders of the operation.
> 
> This is your last article.
> 
> Start your free trial
> In an interview Wednesday night on CNN, Mr. Sanders said he was proud of his 2016 campaign and attributed any missteps with staff members to the explosive growth that was sometimes overwhelming. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you that we did everything right, in terms of human resources,” he told Anderson Cooper.
> 
> “I certainly apologize to any woman who felt she was not treated appropriately, and of course if I run we will do better the next time,” he said.
> 
> Asked if he knew about the staff complaints, he said, “I was a little bit busy running around the country trying to make the case.”
> 
> Editors’ Picks
> 
> ‘A Pumping Conspiracy’: Why Workers Smuggled Breast Pumps Into Prison
> 
> Forget the Suburbs, It’s Country or Bust
> 
> A $21,000 Cosmetology School Debt, and a $9-an-Hour Job
> Some women said the fledgling 2016 campaign was disorganized and decentralized, which made it hard to know whom to turn to in the case of mistreatment.
> 
> “I did experience sexual harassment during the campaign, and there was no one who would or could help,” said Samantha Davis, the former director of operations in Texas and New York, who also worked on the campaign’s advance team. She said that her supervisor marginalized her after she declined an invitation to his hotel room.
> 
> In interviews, women told of makeshift living accommodations on the road, where they were asked to sleep in rooms along with male co-workers they didn’t know. Women who had access to salary records were taken aback to learn that some female staff members made thousands of dollars less than their male counterparts.
> 
> Two delegates who supported Mr. Sanders two years ago recently told his staff that he can’t run for president again without addressing the sexism they believe surfaced in his last campaign.
> 
> “There was an entire wave of rotten sexual harassment that seemingly was never dealt with,” one of the delegates wrote in a December email, obtained by The New York Times, to a Sanders political strategist.
> 
> Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders’s 2016 campaign manager and currently a top adviser, said in an email that “anybody who committed harassment on the campaign would not be asked back” and expressed regret for the operation’s shortcomings.
> 
> “Was it too male? Yes. Was it too white? Yes,” he said. “Would this be a priority to remedy on any future campaign? Definitely, and we share deeply in the urgency for all of us to make change. In 2016, as the size of our campaign exploded, we made efforts to make it a positive experience for people. That there was a failure pains me very much.”
> 
> Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
> A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
> 
> SIGN UP
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Friends of Bernie Sanders, the senator’s campaign committee, said in a response to questions from The Times that there were a number of actions taken during the 2016 campaign regarding harassment and sexism, including employee counseling and a campaign-wide review to standardize pay, and that there was a set of procedures and guidelines for workplace conduct that staff members were required to read. It also said it had developed a new harassment policy for Mr. Sanders’s Senate campaign last year.
> 
> Disenchanted supporters
> Allegations of sexism surfaced during Mr. Sanders’s campaign in 2016, when many of his male fans were derogatorily dubbed “Bernie Bros” for their aggressive online attacks against female reporters and supporters of Hillary Clinton. But they did not overshadow the electrifying nature of his insurgent challenge.
> 
> Circumstances have changed since then. Mr. Sanders is no longer an outsider, but an established leader who will be held to a higher standard. And regarding the treatment of women, he must now grapple with the effects of the #MeToo movement.
> 
> Political campaigns can be grueling experiences for both the women and men involved. But some involved said they considered the treatment of women on the Sanders campaign especially upsetting because the senator positioned himself as a champion of progressive ideals and equality, according to interviews and messages shared on Facebook.
> 
> “I don’t think he has to be the vehicle or the platform for the movement that emerged from his campaign,” said Sarah Slamen, who worked for the campaign in Texas, was the state coordinator in Louisiana and helped build out Our Revolution, a progressive organization born from Mr. Sanders’s presidential campaign.
> 
> “Do you know how hard that is for me to say after working so hard for him?” she said.
> 
> Ms. Slamen quit the organization at the end of 2016 after she said she was berated by a male member of the Our Revolution steering committee for suggesting an organizing plan. In emails reviewed by The Times, she raised issues about sexist behavior with committee members who saw the incident and Our Revolution’s national board of directors. She said she received no reassurance that anything would change.
> 
> In recent weeks, a Facebook group for campaign alumni has become a sounding board for complaints about harassment, lewd comments and gender discrimination. Some alumni have requested a meeting with the senator and his campaign leadership team to address the “overall toxic atmosphere of the 2016 campaign,” according to a screenshot of a post viewed by The Times. Politico first reported on the request.
> 
> Mr. Sanders’s circumstances have changed since his insurgent 2016 campaign. He is no longer the outsider, but an established leader held to a higher standard.
> Credit
> Kathryn Gamble for The New York Times
> 
> 
> Image
> Mr. Sanders’s circumstances have changed since his insurgent 2016 campaign. He is no longer the outsider, but an established leader held to a higher standard.CreditKathryn Gamble for The New York Times
> Ms. Di Lauro, the former strategist in Nevada, was emphatic in her own Facebook posts. “I have to speak up about this now because I hope it will be of service to the next Sanders campaign,” she wrote on Dec. 7.
> 
> In her interview with The Times, Ms. Di Lauro said she told several people who were high up in the campaign, including Rich Pelletier, who served as national field director, about her encounter in Nevada with the surrogate, a Mexican game show host named Marco Antonio Regil. But she felt she was not taken seriously by the campaign.
> 
> “It was as if nothing happened,” she said.
> 
> Masha Mendieta, who was also on the Latino outreach team and who was with Ms. Di Lauro when she spoke with Mr. Velazquez about the incident, confirmed his comments.
> 
> Mr. Velazquez said he does not recall making the flippant remark to Ms. Di Lauro and that he took her complaint seriously. He said he assigned two women to accompany the surrogate, and he checked in with them to make sure there were no problems.
> 
> Mr. Regil said through his agent that he was honored to be a campaign surrogate for Mr. Sanders. “I sincerely apologize for any interactions or behavior on my part that could’ve made anyone feel uncomfortable,” he said.
> 
> Mr. Velasquez said he also told his boss, Arturo Carmona, another manager on the Latino outreach team and deputy national political director, about what had happened and followed up with a memo to Mr. Carmona two weeks later, detailing the incident in an email and saying that he believed Ms. Di Lauro.
> 
> Mr. Carmona said in an email to The Times that, after Mr. Velazquez notified him about the incident, he reported it to Mr. Pelletier.
> 
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> The senator’s campaign committee, in its responses to The Times, said no member of the leadership above Mr. Pelletier was aware of the incident until after the campaign.
> 
> The committee said managers in some cases had not received appropriate training. “With the benefit of hindsight, the surprise explosion of the campaign resulted in there being less-than-ideal training infrastructure,” it said.
> 
> Mr. Pelletier did not respond to phone messages and emails seeking comment.
> 
> Pay disparity became another source of frustration among some women, according to former staff members, especially given that labor was one of the senator’s signature issues. During his campaign, Mr. Sanders earned kudos for paying his interns, a relatively unheard-of practice.
> 
> Some former staff members said there was little pay transparency, and employees often negotiated their own salaries — practices that tend to favor men, who often feel more comfortable requesting higher compensation packages.
> 
> Ms. Davis, the former state director, said that she was originally paid about $2,400 a month as a senior staff member and saw in the campaign’s records that a younger man who was originally supposed to report to her made $5,000 a month. She said that she brought the issue to the campaign’s chief operating officer, who adjusted her salary to achieve parity.
> 
> “I helped at least a dozen women request raises so that they would be paid on par with their male peers,” Ms. Davis said.
> 
> The senator’s campaign committee acknowledged that there were pay disparities but said salaries were based on experience or the nature of the job and “never determined based on any consideration of an individual’s gender or of any other personal characteristic.’’
> 
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> During the campaign, the committee said, it conducted a review to try to standardize pay across the states and within headquarters.
> 
> Treated like ‘personal assistants’
> Frustration among campaign alumni boiled over in recent weeks when Mr. Carmona, the deputy national political director and a divisive figure on the 2016 campaign, appeared smiling in a photograph in early December with Mr. Sanders’s wife, Jane, at a symposium hosted by her organization, the Sanders Institute.
> 
> In 2017, when Mr. Carmona was running for Congress, Ms. Mendieta, the woman who worked with Ms. Di Lauro, came forward with allegations that Mr. Carmona had demeaned women during the 2016 campaign. Ms. Mendieta said in a March 2017 post on Medium that Mr. Carmona treated female staffers “like his personal assistants fetching things for him and doing his errands.”
> 
> Other women backed up Ms. Mendieta’s allegations, and a letter signed by dozens of former campaign staffers and surrogates was circulated urging progressives to withdraw their endorsements of Mr. Carmona. (He lost his special election primary bid in 2017.)
> 
> In an interview, Ms. Mendieta said that she complained multiple times to Mr. Velazquez and Mr. Pelletier about Mr. Carmona and was repeatedly ignored, at one point being told by Mr. Velazquez that she should forgive Mr. Carmona’s behavior because he was “macho.”
> 
> Mr. Velazquez said that he did not remember making that remark or anything like it.
> 
> Ms. Mendieta was among the Latino outreach team members who she said were expected to stay in a run-down house in Chicago in March 2016. When she arrived, she said she was told she was supposed to sleep in a room with three men she did not know.
> 
> “I was shaking with fear,’’ she said. “Literally, I remember thinking to myself, ‘What am I going to do?’” She said she reported the incident to Mr. Pelletier.
> 
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> The campaign committee said that “the challenge of finding staffer housing is one that plagues every large campaign.” It said it knew of one instance that was brought to the attention of senior leaders, including Mr. Weaver, the campaign manager, and that both Mr. Weaver and the chief operating officer “ordered that staff never be housed in coed hotel rooms again.”
> 
> Some weeks later, Ms. Mendieta and other members of the Latino outreach team shared their concerns about Mr. Carmona and Mr. Velazquez during a conference call with Mr. Pelletier, Ms. Mendieta said. The Times has reviewed an email scheduling the call, and another staff member who participated confirmed the substance of the discussion.
> 
> Mr. Carmona was promoted out of the Latino outreach group during the campaign and named a deputy national political director.
> 
> Mr. Carmona, in an email, denied the allegations that he was demeaning and said, “All sexual harassment and issues of discrimination should be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html

I'm not sure about this. Either Sanders turned a blind eye or if this is a smear campaign by the Democratic elite to get him out of the 2020 picture.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Here's a fun Jimmy Dore interview with Ralph Nader. There are 3 parts. 








Vic Capri said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html
> 
> I'm not sure about this. Either Sanders turned a blind eye or if this is a smear campaign by the Democratic elite to get him out of the 2020 picture.
> 
> - Vic


Based on the timing I think I know where I lean. :lol

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39936/watch-fresh-face-dem-congresswoman-were-gonna-hank-berrien

Not a fan of the new Muslim congresswomen I gotta say.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html
> 
> I'm not sure about this. Either Sanders turned a blind eye or if *this is a smear campaign by the Democratic elite* to get him out of the 2020 picture.
> 
> - Vic


These early attacks will appear tame once it's all said and done. Things are gonna get real ugly.


----------



## Draykorinee

The new York Times have clearly chosen Warren, the timing of this release is so obvious this is a hatchet job on Sanders.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960



> Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama in 2009 failed to achieve what the committee hoped it would, its ex-secretary has said.
> 
> Geir Lundestad told the AP news agency that the committee hoped the award would strengthen Mr Obama.
> 
> Instead, the decision was met with criticism in the US. Many argued he had not had any impact worthy of the award.
> 
> Mr Lundestad, writing in his memoir, Secretary of Peace, said even Mr Obama himself had been surprised.
> 
> "No Nobel Peace Prize ever elicited more attention than the 2009 prize to Barack Obama," Mr Lundestad writes.
> 
> "Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake," he says. "In that sense the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for".
> 
> He also reveals that Mr Obama considered not going to pick up the award in Norway's capital, Oslo.
> 
> His staff enquired whether other winners had skipped the ceremony but found this has happened only on rare occasions, such as when dissidents were held back by their governments.
> 
> "In the White House they quickly realised that they needed to travel to Oslo," Mr Lundestad wrote.
> 
> Mr Lundestad served as the committee's influential, but non-voting, secretary from 1990 to 2015.
> 
> He has broken with the tradition of the secretive committee, whose members rarely discuss proceedings.


Ironically, by the end of his presidency Trump might actually be deserving of one if things with North Korea hold up and we pull out of Syria AND Afghanistan. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Let's be honest. Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for replacing George W. Bush

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

First day of the new Congress and the progressive caucus has already laid on their backs and given it up to Nancy Pelosi. :lol The corporate Democrats can now tank any progressive legislation they want.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The Right Wingers on Twitter decide to throw a little bitch-fit over a college girl Dancing. But we know how some social conservatives really are. They have always been against the entire concept of "fun" as a whole. Probably as a consequence of their own pathetic sorry little lives couped up in small ass towns everywhere :Shrug

Looks like the right wing prudes couldn't come up with anything legit to criticize Cortez over, so they decided to throw a little bitchfest over a video of her dancing in a college video



> *Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Congresswoman attacked for dancing*
> 
> In the eyes of some social media critics the United States' youngest-ever congresswoman can do no right.
> 
> To a lengthy list of past misdemeanours, including her clothes and not being rich, can now be added the grievous crime of dancing while in college.
> 
> A day before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was officially sworn-in, near decade-old footage of the congresswoman dancing as a student at Boston University re-emerged on Twitter, apparently in an effort to embarrass her.
> 
> It has since been viewed more than 8 million times.
> 
> *"Here is America's favourite commie know-it-all acting like the clueless nitwit she is," one right-wing Twitter account, @AnonymousQ1776, wrote as they shared the clip. The account, which appears to reference the bizarre QAnon conspiracy theory, has since been removed.
> 
> "After Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is forced out of office after one term she can go dance on a stage that has a pole," said another.
> *
> But the criticism prompted a much larger wave of support for the congresswoman online.
> 
> "[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] is officially done," comedian Patton Oswalt joked.
> 
> "She'll never recover from the world seeing her dancing adorably and having fun with her friends."
> 
> "I want Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to give me dance lessons," Star Trek actor George Takei tweeted, while actor Russell Crowe declared her "fantastic".
> 
> The video of Ms Ocasio-Cortez was compiled from a longer video featuring Boston University students. The video was posted to YouTube in 2010, when Ms Ocasio-Cortez was an undergraduate.
> 
> The video was part of a meme circulating at the time.
> 
> Participants, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other students at Boston University, emulated the dance from 1980s movie The Breakfast Club in a mash-up featuring the song Lisztomania, by French indie band Phoenix.


Fucking embarrassing state of politics in this country :lol

Here's the video that was supposed to "embarrass" her. 






Never thought that a real life Footloose would play out in 2019, but here we are :lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> First day of the new Congress and the progressive caucus has already laid on their backs and given it up to Nancy Pelosi. :lol The corporate Democrats can now tank any progressive legislation they want.


So the so called progressives proved that they are just like every other politician


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Never thought that a real life Footloose would play out in 2019, but here we are


Sandy can dance!

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday that she supports former Vice President Joe Biden in what is likely to be a crowded 2020 Democratic presidential field.
> 
> That might make things awkward with Feinstein’s fellow Californian, Sen. Kamala Harris, who is also considering a run.
> 
> “He has the experience, the drive, he was chairman of [the Senate Judiciary Committee] when I came” to the Senate, Feinstein said Thursday. “I worked with him closely on a number of different things. I have a great respect for his integrity as well as his ability. And I think experience is really important at this particular point, where our world is today.”
> 
> Feinstein’s support for Biden was first reported by Politico on Thursday morning. When asked by the Los Angeles Times about the comments, Feinstein suggested that her long personal history with Biden plays a role in how she feels.
> 
> “I was asked who I favor, and right now it’s Joe Biden,” she said.
> 
> Fellow Democrat Harris is also expected to jump into the presidential contest.
> 
> When asked whether she would support Harris, Feinstein said: “I’m a big fan of Sen. Harris, and I work with her. But she’s brand-new here, so it takes a little bit of time to get to know somebody.”
> 
> Harris was elected to the Senate in 2016. Her office declined to comment Thursday.


https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-congress-feinstein-20190103-story.html


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The Right Wingers on Twitter decide to throw a little bitch-fit over a college girl Dancing. But we know how some social conservatives really are. They have always been against the entire concept of "fun" as a whole. Probably as a consequence of their own pathetic sorry little lives couped up in small ass towns everywhere :Shrug
> 
> Looks like the right wing prudes couldn't come up with anything legit to criticize Cortez over, so they decided to throw a little bitchfest over a video of her dancing in a college video
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking embarrassing state of politics in this country :lol
> 
> Here's the video that was supposed to "embarrass" her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought that a real life Footloose would play out in 2019, but here we are :lol


She's been mocked for this since she was first elected, way before now. Besides if you're going to attack her on something, attack her for being a dimwit. :laugh:



CamillePunk said:


> Here's a fun Jimmy Dore interview with Ralph Nader. There are 3 parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the timing I think I know where I lean. :lol
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/39936/watch-fresh-face-dem-congresswoman-were-gonna-hank-berrien
> 
> Not a fan of the new Muslim congresswomen I gotta say.


I like her, her silliness will just add to the already big joke American Politics already is. Besides we could use a few more non-white anti-semitics. That way we can laugh at the people who cry about racism but ignore the rampant racism from these people.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> She's been mocked for this since she was first elected, way before now. Besides if you're going to attack her on something, attack her for being a dimwit. :laugh:


"Dimwit" would put her in the top 0.1% of intellectuals within congress.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The Right Wingers on Twitter decide to throw a little bitch-fit over a college girl Dancing




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081234130841600000
I wonder if at any point it dawned on them that criticizing her over dancing would backfire.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080998665672630272
Not sure about the accuracy of whether she was the only one booed or not (I didn't hear any boos), but I love her attitude. :banderas


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The account that posted the AOC dancing video vanished shortly after it became clear that most people (including conservatives) either had no problem with or liked the video. :lol Can't help but wonder if it was just a way to try and get conservatives to attack her over literally nothing and it didn't work.

Her ridiculous Green New Deal is all the reason conservatives need to attack her. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The account that posted the AOC dancing video vanished shortly after it became clear that most people (including conservatives) either had no problem with or liked the video. :lol Can't help but wonder if it was just a way to try and get conservatives to attack her over literally nothing and it didn't work.
> 
> *Her ridiculous Green New Deal is all the reason conservatives need to attack her.* :lol


And why is that? Do tell, this should be good


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081253474510225409
:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The election of Trump certainly seems to have opened the door for the acceptability of wack jobs...not that the sitting politicos were much better.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






One of my favourite videos of 2019.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> One of my favourite videos of 2019.


Just watched this video.  It's amazing how the corporate media has used Trump as the bogeyman to convince so many people that the endless war status quo is necessary and the intelligence agencies are your friends. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Just watched this video.  It's amazing how the corporate media has used Trump as the bogeyman to convince so many people that the endless war status quo is necessary and the intelligence agencies are your friends. :lol


I love how you pretend Trump is not a Warhawk after all his drone strikes.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you pretend Trump is not a Warhawk after all his drone strikes.


He's too hawkish and should stop droning people. Still to the left of you on war though!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> He's too hawkish and should stop droning people. Still to the left of you on war though!


How he is to the left of me on war? LOL I am 100% anti-war. You don't even make any sense.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


>


Do you read the threads you post in ><


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Do you read the threads you post in ><


Usually. This is a rare time when I evidently didn't


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I always look forward to seeing a virus21 post because Conor Leslie :banderas


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Not sure about the accuracy of whether she was the only one booed or not (I didn't hear any boos), but I love her attitude. :banderas


AOC has been dunking on neolibs and conservatives alike since winning the primary. her twitter feed is fire.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072678976823418881

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016704302147096576

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1010169689387995138

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1079083478510116869

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067216682391875585

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027729430137827328

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063208373192146945

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069268454455341056

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065369433982595073

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064977742117171200

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064510927293292545

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062731138031120384
:banderas

the kids are going to be alright. bama


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'm not a fan of the Anti-Israeli congresswoman, but there are again, far, far worse people in congress right now.

Cortez is good. 

The Republican/right wing methods to try to discredit her have all been cheap and pathetic tactics ... No fair criticism at all. But that's what the right wing does. It's not interested in arguing policies. We see this on here all the time. Every single right winger that starts losing an argument resorts to safe space creating tactics like "blocking", invoking "communism is evilz" etc.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I saw some shit where the villain of Footloose LEAKED a video of Ocasio-Cortez dancing. It would be so terrible to be the villain from Footloose. How embarrassing.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Cortez is well meaning but not dealing in reality.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> Cortez is well meaning but not dealing in reality.


What is the reality?

She's from that bunch of leftists that is still idealistic enough to believe that the government can be made to function for the people. So she's involved in the government. That's her choice. 

I mean, she could be out on the street with a guillotine :Shrug 

I would still like her.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> What is the reality?
> 
> She's from that bunch of leftists that is still idealistic enough to believe that the government can be made to function for the people. So she's involved in the government. That's her choice.
> 
> I mean, she could be out on the street with a guillotine :Shrug
> 
> I would still like her.


She doesn't seem to recognize the heavy hand that would be needed to usher in the utopia.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> I saw some shit where the villain of Footloose LEAKED a video of Ocasio-Cortez dancing. It would be so terrible to be the villain from Footloose. How embarrassing.


The thing about that is most conservatives I saw were mocking the tweet itself. I haven't seen any conservative with any name value actually criticize her for dancing. Can't help but feel the tweet was a false flag given its overt ridiculous nature. :lol Whole thing seems manufactured to me. 


Now for something potentially fun. Sargon of Akkad recently took a political compass test and even I was surprised to see where he stood on some things as someone who watches a ton of his videos. This inspired me to take it again but to actually expand on my answers and share them, and I encourage others to do the same. Let's try to understand each other better instead of just labeling people we disagree with "trolls".  (That said I won't be unblocking people who regularly respond to my arguments with personal attacks, nor those who have admitted to being phonies as they obviously aren't honest actors in these discussions).

I'll start and provide a format people can easily copy/paste/replace from: 



Spoiler: My answers



*If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.*

Agree - Kind of a "feels" question rather than one of substance or policy but yeah clearly what's good for humanity at large is better than what's good for corporations. What's even more important of course is what is good for the individual, since society is made up of individuals and we're only capable of determining what is good for ourselves, if even that. (Y)

*I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.*

Strongly Disagree - Can't imagine how anyone could say otherwise. :lol Nazi Germany or the even more egregious Soviet Union is all I need to say.

*No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.
*
Disagree - Generally agree that patriotism or nationalism to the point of dick-waving is stupid, but I think it's important for people to feel some sense of allegiance to the country they reside in so they can fight to make it into something they can be proud of, if that makes sense.

*Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
*
Strongly Disagree - There are differences between the races that can be considered advantages or disadvantages, but I don't think any one race is across-the-board advantaged or disadvantaged over any other. Definitely shouldn't affect policy or how people treat one another. 

*The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
*
Disagree - Temporary convenient ally maybe, but not friend. 

*Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
*
Agree - While I only believe in taking military action in defense of one's own country, I don't think other countries should be deciding our options for us, no matter how agreeable I might find current international law. It can always change. 

*There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
*
Strongly Agree - People think corporate-owned comedians who religiously tow the establishment line are telling them the truth about politics. It's a serious problem. 

*People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
*
Agree - I know this is the commie answer but from my own experiences I agree. I have friends from other countries and get along with them better than I do rich people in my own country who can't relate at all to my life experiences. 

*Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
*
Agree - You can always do something about being unemployed. Dealing with inflation is trickier and more damaging to the economy at large.

*Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
*
Disagree - Corporations can be trusted to look after their bottom line. Through investigative journalism and people speaking out, we can make being environmentally abusive harmful to a company's bottom line. 

*“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea.
*
Strongly Disagree - Nobody is capable of or can be trusted with determining either of these things, and people can decide for themselves if they want to work harder/smarter to earn the luxuries in life. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. There's also the implication that if I want to build a fortune to ensure my children don't have to work, I shouldn't be allowed to. Why? I'm the one who did the work, and they're my kids. Cease.

*It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
*
Disagree - This is really dumb. There are a lot of good reasons to have bottled water, which is why people pay for it, which ensures there is more of it available, and the competition ensures it's available at a very low price, which it is. 

*Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.
*
Disagree - Allowing private ownership of land is the best way of ensuring it will be properly maintained and used productively. We take better care of our own stuff far better than we do shared commodities. That's just a fact.

*It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
*
Agree - But I don't care enough to want to do anything about it.

*Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
*
Agree - Can't have free trade with a country that won't allow free trade with you. You can only get taken advantage of. 

*The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
*
Agree - I wish that's all companies focused on instead of all the social justice bullshit they do these days, thanks to the universities which have churned out a bunch of communists with no actual productive skills so they just infest corporate HR departments and ruin any semblance of meritocracy in the US and thus our competitive edge. 

*The rich are too highly taxed.
*
Agree - Of course they are. They pay far more than their proportional share of all taxes. Only envy could convince someone that that is somehow fair. 

*Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care.
*
Agree - Why not? 

*Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
*
Disagree - Governments mislead the public constantly and are largely owned by corporations anyway, so giving them this power is just empowering the people who are part of the problem. We should penalize businesses with our purchasing decisions and through spreading the word about bad actors. 

*A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
*
Agree - But these restrictions are built into actually having a free market. Government interference is how we end up with monopolies in the first place. Because the big companies just lobby to make it harder for smaller companies to compete. The government is just a gun. Whoever has the most power gets to point it in the direction they want. 

*The freer the market, the freer the people.
*
Strongly Agree - The market is just people making decisions, thus this is self-evidently true. 

*Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
*
Disagree - Opposed to abortion both morally and pragmatically but still don't think the government should ban it. Should probably ban mid-late term abortions though because that's just horrific. 

*All authority should be questioned.
*
Strongly Agree - Obviously.

*An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
*
Strongly Disagree - You don't solve barbarism with more barbarism. 

*Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.
*
Agree - If people don't think a museum or theatre is offering them enough value to voluntarily fund it, why should it stay open? People enjoy culture, history, and entertainment enough to pay for these things IF they do a good job at delivering those things. 

*Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
*
Agree - I don't really care about this. Education looks absolutely nothing like the way it should and needs to be completely reinvented and rebuilt from the ground up. The state shouldn't really be involved given the conflict of interest and power dynamics involved. 

*All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.*

Strongly Disagree - lmao

*Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.*

Strongly Disagree - ONLY bad parents HAVE to spank their children. The science on the negative effects of spanking is settled. If a situation involving your child escalated to the point you had to hit them, you utterly failed in preparation and lack credibility with your child. 

*It’s natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
*
Agree - Sure, why not. 

*Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.
*
Strongly Agree - Not sure how any reasonable person could think possessing a plant should be a crime. 

*The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
*
Disagree - People should be educated to become critical thinkers, regardless of their life's purpose. I do think critical thinkers are, incidentally, highly employable, whereas a typical high school or even humanities college education gives one neither critical thinking or marketable skills in general. This is by design as the state relies on stupid, dependent people who will vote to expand its power. 

*People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.
*
Disagree - Nein, people can make their own reproductive decisions. 

*The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
*
Disagree - Again, critical thinking. 

*There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
*
Strongly Disagree - fucking lmao

*Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support.
*
Strongly Agree - Does anyone really disagree with this? 

*When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
*
Disagree - Nein, focus on solving your problems before they get worse.

*First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.
*
Disagree - In the past they actually integrated far better than their offspring, who have gone the other way. The problem nowadays of course is all of the demonization of the dominant culture where you have people acting like integrating is somehow a bad thing because of past wrongs between people who don't exist anymore. So yeah, it's not that they can't, it's that they won't anymore, and that's because of social justice morons who are destroying the social fabric. The government subsidizing people who come here illegally and can't survive on their own is another problem as well. 

*What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
*
Disagree - Only if we have a society where people actually hold corporations in check, which we don't. And that's largely because we are programmed to look to the government, which corporations run, to solve our problems. 

*No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.
*
Strongly Agree - No such thing as an independent publicly funded institution. People make decisions based on their self-interest and respond to incentives. 

*Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
*
Strongly Agree - Yes, and it's completely wrong. 

*A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
*
Strongly Disagree - I don't like democracy but the type of "progress" we see from one-party states is not something I would call progress at all. 

*Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
*
Strongly Disagree - jesus christ

*The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.
*
Strongly Disagree - Not a fan of the government being allowed to kill its own citizens.

*In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.
*
Strongly Disagree - Make a good case and convince people to do what you think should be done voluntarily. Trying to 

*Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all.
*
Disagree - People can think whatever they want about art. 

*In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
*
Disagree - Punishment is important as a deterrent but the optimal solution is rehabilitation whenever possible. 

*It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
*
Disagree - Only extreme cases like sociopaths but even then I'm not sure what the better alternative would be than to try. 

*The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
*
Disagree - They're both as important as the market decides they are.

*Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
*
Disagree - I do think one parent should stay home with the kids to whatever degree possible but it doesn't have to be the mom. 

*Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.
*
Agree - Probably. 

*Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity. 
*
Disagree - The establishment is cancer. 

*Astrology accurately explains many things.
*
Strongly Disagree - ye no

*You cannot be moral without being religious.
*
Disagree - Incorrect, but it's also false that you can only be moral by being non-religious, as some atheists like to proclaim. 

*Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.
*
Agree - Social security is a theft-driven ponzi scheme. Charity is voluntary, and is therefore vastly superior. 

*Some people are naturally unlucky.
*
Agree - True.

*It is important that my child’s school instills religious values.
*
Disagree - Nah. 

*Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
*
Disagree - If it's consensual between adults it ain't immoral. I do think monogamy is underrated in today's culture though and that promiscuity is destructive to individuals and society. Not in favor of passing any laws on the matter. 

*A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
*
Agree - Don't see any reason why they should be. 

*Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.
*
Agree - Again, no reason why it shouldn't be. 

*What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.
*
Strongly Agree - Obviously.

*No one can feel naturally homosexual.
*
Disagree - False. 

*These days openness about sex has gone too far.
*
Disagree - Openness, no. Promiscuity, yes.

My compass: https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=3.13&soc=-5.64

Don't really agree that I have a remotely authoritarian political position but I recognize why it would come out that way given the questions asked and the assumptions that have to be made to simplify the test.



https://www.politicalcompass.org/

Sargon's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swhQdq8Vmzc


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The thought that it was manufactured crossed my mind too CP. Still got a decent chuckle from the whole thing though.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> The thought that it was manufactured crossed my mind too CP. Still got a decent chuckle from the whole thing though.


My most dominant thought of course is that she's pretty hot when she isn't smiling intensely into a camera with her hair tied back and her fangs fully exposed looking like an insane person. :side: 

But any semblance of attraction immediately dies upon listening to her speak in an interview.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081296415119167488
omg :done :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It was the reptilians that put the tweet out there.

Pretty sure. 

Why claim false flag when you're not going to blame the reptilians. Why half ass being the resident Alex Jones of WF? :Shrug


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> She doesn't seem to recognize the heavy hand that would be needed to usher in the utopia.


These people want the public to imagine that all these things could be done and life would not change at all really

You'd notice no difference except you'd have more money because the government would pay for 40% or more of your expenses in one way or another

Where the money comes from for the government to do that, how the government achieves this objective or that objective without forcing a lot of people to do this and a lot of people not to do that, well, they know it's impossible without changes that the public would not like. They're fine with you thinking things would go real smooth, if they can get you to think that 

Ask how this shit gets paid for and they get indignant and start trying to change the subject to 'ideals' or 'what's humane' or something

Ask how this shit gets done without majorly changing various aspects of the way people live and they get indignant and start trying to change the subject to 'ideals' or 'what's humane' or something



CamillePunk said:


> Let's try to understand each other better instead of just labeling people we disagree with "trolls".


Shaddup troll :cudi

Those political compass tests are too shallow as Dr. Ian Malcolm would say the questions are thintelligent


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






Excellent short video analyzing the three different concepts of liberty and how these different views are at the heart of the culture war and left-right political divide.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The president says the partial government shutdown could go on for 'months or years.'

If he sticks to that... this man :trump4 :trump2

I've been waiting for a president who doesn't play the insipid Washington game 100% of the time


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Considering that a government shutdown is a classic establishment GOP tactic, there's nothing anti-establishment about Trump's shutdown 

Are you really that hopeless with regards to coming up with bullshit to praise him for that you'll ignore the last 8 years of GOP-led shutdowns 

Stop embarrassing yourself Deep. Seriously.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

"Warren can't do it without risking rain" :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> The president says the partial government shutdown could go on for 'months or years.'
> 
> If he sticks to that... this man :trump4 :trump2
> 
> I've been waiting for a president who doesn't play the insipid Washington game 100% of the time


Anything following "the president says" should be viewed dubiously but I'd love to see it happen. :lol Fact is we pay the federal government a lot of money for shit it shouldn't be doing and that could be done privately much better and much cheaper.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Considering that a government shutdown is a classic establishment GOP tactic, there's nothing anti-establishment about Trump's shutdown
> 
> Are you really that hopeless with regards to coming up with bullshit to praise him for that you'll ignore the last 8 years of GOP-led shutdowns
> 
> Stop embarrassing yourself Deep. Seriously.


I don't regard your consideration of what is embarrassing to mean anything

I hold to it the same credit as I would the consideration of a chair, or a windowsill

Shutdowns are a tactic of brinksmanship and the GOP has been led by a group of men with peanuts in their pants instead of grapefruits. Democrats refuse to compromise or negotiate at all, GOP leadership folds after sufficient beating in the press

So I do hope that the president feels his grapefruits on this shutdown. The Democrats can compromise for once 

Now back to the credit I give your considerations, the level of mundane inanimate objects applies to any considerations you may feel open to sharing. This information is given as an attempt of preventing the conversation to be needlessly lengthened. This prevention will be effected regardless


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> I don't regard your consideration of what is embarrassing to mean anything
> 
> I hold to it the same credit as I would the consideration of a chair, or a windowsill
> 
> Shutdowns are a tactic of brinksmanship and the GOP has been led by a group of men with peanuts in their pants instead of grapefruits. Democrats refuse to compromise or negotiate at all, GOP leadership folds after sufficient beating in the press
> 
> So I do hope that the president feels his grapefruits on this shutdown. The Democrats can compromise for once
> 
> Now back to the credit I give your considerations, the level of mundane inanimate objects applies to any considerations you may feel open to sharing. This information is given as an attempt of preventing the conversation to be needlessly lengthened. This prevention will be effected regardless


Uh huh. None of that means anything at all considering that you were praising Trump for having the balls to continue a shut down, despite the fact that this has been the GOP's go to tactic for 8 years (now 10). There's nothing original, ground-breaking or special about it that can be attributed to Trump. It's callous. 

He's just doing what the GOP has always done. Ergo, an establishment puppet. 

Move along now. And stop whining about not caring about what I think when you're literally always responding to me as many times as I post in any thread. I've been deep inside your head for a while now. And I don't think that's going to change any time soon.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> She doesn't seem to recognize the heavy hand that would be needed to usher in the utopia.


yet she seems to be standing up against the establishment and fighting back pretty well.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yet she seems to be standing up against the establishment and fighting back pretty well.


I wouldn't give her _that_ much credit _yet_. 

She is one to watch though.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I wouldn't give her _that_ much credit _yet_.
> 
> She is one to watch though.


The system will break her just like it breaks everyone else.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> The system will break her just like it breaks everyone else.


Most likely.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Responding to news that former Democratic Sen. Joe Liebermann—who once promised to never lobby after leaving Congress—is joining the Chinese telecom giant ZTE as a registered lobbyist, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) argued on Thursday that such a move should be illegal and reiterated her call for "a lifetime ban on members of Congress working as lobbyists."
> 
> Warren, who on Monday offically announced that she is exploring a 2020 presidential bid, went on to call for a total ban on foreign lobbying as well, arguing that it would force "countries like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia... to conduct their foreign policy out in the open."
> 
> "ZTE is a giant foreign telecom company that's close with the Chinese government. They've violated serious U.S. sanctions on Iran and North Korea. Their lobbyists keep blocking accountability. And today former Senator Joe Lieberman joined them. Should that be legal? No," Warren declared on Twitter.
> 
> "Corruption in Washington isn't about a single president or political party. It runs deep," the Massachusetts senator added. "We should call it out—and we should pass my sweeping anti-corruption reforms to clamp down on all the ways giant companies drown govt in money to get their way."
> 
> As Common Dreams reported, Warren in August unveiled a sweeping bill titled the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act (pdf), which would—among a host of other reforms—completely bar foreign lobbying and impose a lifetime ban on lobbying by former presidents, members of congress, and federal agency chiefs.
> 
> "Our national crisis of faith in government boils down to this simple fact: people don't trust their government to do the right thing because they think government works for the rich, the powerful, and the well-connected, and not for the American people. And here's the kicker: They're right," Warren declared in a speech after introducing her bill. "I'd love to stand here and tell you that this was some sudden drop after Donald Trump was elected, but that wouldn't be true. This problem is far bigger than Trump."


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/04/slamming-joe-lieberman-joining-chinese-telecom-giant-warren-calls-lifetime-ban


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/04/slamming-joe-lieberman-joining-chinese-telecom-giant-warren-calls-lifetime-ban


Warren isn't wrong.

Also with all the Anri-Russian xenophobia going about it's funny that these foreign powers actually doing shady stuff legally for years now. I mean how many times has China been caught stealing our tech? Yet we're hungry for more workers to be put in the tech centers. :laugh:


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Warren isn't wrong.
> 
> Also with all the Anri-Russian xenophobia going about it's funny that these foreign powers actually doing shady stuff legally for years now. I mean how many times has China been caught stealing our tech? Yet we're hungry for more workers to be put in the tech centers. :laugh:


There was a Chinese spy working for a senator for years before he got caught.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Any kind of ban on lobbying after serving in government probably violates the First Amendment :draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Any kind of ban on lobbying after serving in government probably violates the First Amendment :draper2


Lobbying shouldn't be legal in the first place. :nerd:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Lobbying shouldn't be legal in the first place. :nerd:


Yes, it should


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081334030568570880


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Would bang AOC 

Only if her mouth was filled my dick or a ballgag the entire time though


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Really priming up the 2020 run


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081334030568570880


Yet that’s not how it played out


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yet that’s not how it played out


No no no... It was a false flag. The reptilians did it.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Don't ask retarded questions if you want serious responses. There is no sign shop offering the same services as another for 1500 less because a mega corporation already crushed the mom and pop sign shops and doubled the price. Then they bought the politicians to make sure no other sign shops can start their own businesses.
> 
> Your fantasies about small businesses in a competitive free market have no bearing on the monopolized economy we find ourselves living in.


A few things:

1. Wow that's now THREE times to you chose not to answer this very simple question. Very, very revealing. 

2. I have no idea WTF you're talking about when you claim there are no local sign businesses anymore. That's just plain false. If you google it right now I can almost guarantee that you'll be able to find multiple outlets in your area alone. I don't even KNOW of a dominant mega corporation in that industry. 

3. The fact that I used the sign business as an example is arbitrary. What's key is the dilemma that's presented. You have the choice of paying more for a service or you have the choice of paying less for the exact same service. You are faced with this decision every time you make a business transaction and every time your decision is going to have consequences for someone else.

Tell me, are we really to assume that you routinely go out of your way to pay _more_ for things when you don't have to? Or are you just looking to cut costs and save money like the rest of us capitalist 'sociopaths'?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'm just wondering with all these mega corporations owning business why are about 80 million people working for businesses that employ 1000 people or less.

There are several dozen printing companies in my area from a family business that I use that employs 4 all family to another one I used to work for that employs about 60, and many others of the same or other sizes as well. They do everything from printings and bindings for court briefs to signs dozens of square feet in size. Indoor and outdoor. And by my area I mean two counties with a population of 1.5 million. 

There are many benefits to mom and pop stores but they served a shallow, if broad, market niche and got beat by competitors that offered greater variety of products at lower price. Many of the benefits of the past were social, not economic. The small town community feeling. The same thing in neighborhoods in the cities. It was wholesome! I knew Tater wanted to MAGA in some kinda way. 

You can't turn back the clock on ways to make more money faster. There have always been social changes, changes in relation between socioeconomic groups, following abrupt economic changes. Humanity has always adapted, after an initial period of uncertain turbulency. Things prove to have rarely been as bad as they seemed at the time. 

The social adjustments sometimes took decades. We're not even that far, really, into this rather abrupt economic shift to information and instant mass communication, and an emphasis on economy of scale in many of the more visible (consumerist) sectors of the economy. The scourge of everybody looking at screens all the damn time will be figured out, and the scourge of National Consolidated Sign Company doesn't exist.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> A few things:
> 
> 1. Wow that's now THREE times to you chose not to answer this very simple question. Very, very revealing.


The only thing it reveals is that I am not willing to play your gotcha question game and that you are ignoring the bigger picture in an attempt to preach your ideology.



> 2. I have no idea WTF you're talking about when you claim there are no local sign businesses anymore. That's just plain false. If you google it right now I can almost guarantee that you'll be able to find multiple outlets in your area alone. I don't even KNOW of a dominant mega corporation in that industry.


You just said below the sign business is arbitrary, but you still want to hold it up as an example. Sorry, Charlie, you don't get to have it both ways.



> 3. The fact that I used the sign business as an example is arbitrary. What's key is the dilemma that's presented. You have the choice of paying more for a service or you have the choice of paying less for the exact same service. You are faced with this decision every time you make a business transaction and every time your decision is going to have consequences for someone else.


It's more profitable to own slaves than it is to pay reasonable wages. Would you agree that owning slaves should be illegal? If you say yes, then your entire argument breaks down. If you say no... well, I shouldn't have to explain that part.



> Tell me, are we really to assume that you routinely go out of your way to pay _more_ for things when you don't have to? Or are you just looking to cut costs and save money like the rest of us capitalist 'sociopaths'?


This is the crux of your fail. The only way for you to make this argument is to completely ignore the systemic rot within the capitalist system. There is nothing inherently wrong with cutting costs and saving money. We should all be living within our means so we have a habitable planet and a sustainable economy. But, you only seem to be making that argument against poor people. When you start making that argument against the handful of people who own more wealth than the bottom half of everyone living on this planet, then we can have a more serious discussion.

BTW, your sign shop example is still fucking retarded. I have always promoted a decentralized economy with local production owned by local people to fulfill local needs. The problem, as I have said a million goddamned times, is the extreme levels of power and wealth concentration that leads to monopolization. Using a small business as an example to defend corporate monopolies fails you right out of the gate and does not deserve a serious response.


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081334030568570880
> 
> 
> 
> Yet that’s not how it played out
Click to expand...

We all know that's not how it played, but let's just pander to conspiracy theories for a little bit.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> We all know that's not how it played, but let's just pander to conspiracy theories for a little bit.


The dancing outrage was dumb. The video is old, people had a laugh and memed it months ago, for laughs. Getting upset over her dancing is as dumb as the "two scoops" scandal.

People need to pull their heads from their collective asses. 0

Random info since my Yellow Jacket thread died, the protesters burned down a bank! The riots are still going on and the media coverage is nil. :x


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> The dancing outrage was dumb. The video is old, people had a laugh and memed it months ago, for laughs. Getting upset over her dancing is as dumb as the "two scoops" scandal.
> 
> People need to pull their heads from their collective asses. 0
> 
> Random info since my Yellow Jacket thread died, the protesters burned down a bank! The riots are still going on and the media coverage is nil. :x


The media coverage? I can't see any coverage, even social media. Where are you getting updates from? Looks like it died from this side of the Channel.

Some Kill Bill shit going on here



> Police in the US state of Arizona have launched a sexual assault investigation amid reports a patient in a vegetative state for a decade gave birth.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> First day of the new Congress and the progressive caucus has already laid on their backs and given it up to Nancy Pelosi. :lol The corporate Democrats can now tank any progressive legislation they want.


Progressives are upset they can't spend an indefinite amount of money with a congress that is already spending way too much money :HA.

Not to mention the PayGo scheme in reality will do little to dent the huge deficit spending that is seemingly going on year after year regardless of who is in charge of congress or who the president is.

Embarrassing all around, not just because they caved to Pelosi but because of progressives reasoning to oppose PayGo to begin with.

-----------------

As far as AOC goes, I do wonder how upset Conservatives really were at the dancing video considering the article which detailed this managed to pull out a grand total of *TWO* examples of twitter outrage. You would think if there was this giant backlash the journalist would have managed to pull out multiple examples and quite gleefully too. The fact that he/she couldn't is quite telling.

So until I see otherwise, this comes across as a huge reach by Democrat supporters.

Still hilarious all around, both the reaction by the few outraged social conservative losers and the Democrat partisans who feel that somehow they got one over Conservatives/Republicans because of this. Seeing pages like Occupy Democrats frothing at the mouth posting about 5 or 6 updates on this one little story has been pretty amusing to say the least :lmao.

Coincidentally, the video itself is probably the most likable thing about AOC I've seen thus far :lol.

I may do the political compass when I get some free time tomorrow as I haven't done one in a while .


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> It's more profitable to own slaves than it is to pay reasonable wages. Would you agree that owning slaves should be illegal? If you say yes, then your entire argument breaks down. If you say no... well, I shouldn't have to explain that part.


Actually your argument breaks down because you equate working a job with slavery. Says something about your character too. 

Slavery is immoral. Owning another human being is immoral. Paying someone to perform a job that they voluntarily applied for... and for a wage that they voluntarily agreed to... is an honest business transaction that is mutually beneficial for both parties.

Employment isn't slavery. If you aren't happy with the amount of money people are offering you then go do something about it. Make yourself more valuable. No one is going to just _give_ you everything that you demand. You have to be able to offer something of equal value in return. 



Tater said:


> This is the crux of your fail. The only way for you to make this argument is to completely ignore the systemic rot within the capitalist system. There is nothing inherently wrong with cutting costs and saving money. We should all be living within our means so we have a habitable planet and a sustainable economy. But, you only seem to be making that argument against poor people. When you start making that argument against the handful of people who own more wealth than the bottom half of everyone living on this planet, then we can have a more serious discussion.


And who are _you_ to determine who has too much? What you aren't privileged? There are people starving all over the world. Poor people living in the U.S. are practically leading a first class lifestyle compared to someone living in Somalia, let alone someone like you with working internet and is presumably middle class. Those people would envy you the same way that you envy someone that's in the 1%.

What if someone demanded that YOU have too much? That YOU need to give your money away? What then? Or will you dodge that question too?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Rolo Tomassi said:


> Progressives are upset they can't spend an indefinite amount of money with a congress that is already spending way too much money :HA.
> 
> Not to mention the PayGo scheme in reality will do little to dent the huge deficit spending that is seemingly going on year after year regardless of who is in charge of congress or who the president is.
> 
> Embarrassing all around, not just because they caved to Pelosi but because of progressives reasoning to oppose PayGo to begin with.
> 
> -----------------
> 
> As far as AOC goes, I do wonder how upset Conservatives really were at the dancing video considering the article which detailed this managed to pull out a grand total of *TWO* examples of twitter outrage. You would think if there was this giant backlash the journalist would have managed to pull out multiple examples and quite gleefully too. The fact that he/she couldn't is quite telling.
> 
> So until I see otherwise, this comes across as a huge reach by Democrat supporters.
> 
> Still hilarious all around, both the reaction by the few outraged social conservative losers and the Democrat partisans who feel that somehow they got one over Conservatives/Republicans because of this. Seeing pages like Occupy Democrats frothing at the mouth posting about 5 or 6 updates on this one little story has been pretty amusing to say the least :lmao.
> 
> Coincidentally, the video itself is probably the most likable thing about AOC I've seen thus far :lol.
> 
> I may do the political compass when I get some free time tomorrow as I haven't done one in a while .


Yeah man. It's a total False Flag Operation.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'm not inclined to trust in the altruism of industry nor the altruism/competence of government or central planning. Regulation is necessary but should also be limited as much as possible.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

If you give the government too much power they will fuck us. If you give the corporations too much power they will fuck us.

In an ideal world the government would keep corporations in check through sensible regulation to keep them from fucking us and corporations through sound responsible business plans would do services better than the government to keep them from fucking us.

What's happened is, instead of keeping each other in check they are working together to fuck us.

And they are succeeding in that endeavor.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> If you give the government too much power they will fuck us. If you give the corporations too much power they will fuck us.
> 
> In an ideal world the government would keep corporations in check through sensible regulation to keep them from fucking us and corporations through sounds responsible business plans would do services better than the government to keep them from fucking us.
> 
> What's happened is, instead of keeping each other in check they are working together to fuck us.
> 
> And they are succeeding in that endeavor.


I believe it was Carlin who said something along the line of 'a pessimist is a disillusioned idealist'.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> I believe it was Carlin who said something along the line of 'a pessimist is a disillusioned idealist'.


I think that's true.

George was describing himself when he said that. There's this understandable misconception about him that he was angry at the way the world was, but he wasn't. I've listened to interviews with his brother Patrick and his girlfriend Sally and they both say the same thing, George wasn't angry, he was disappointed. In the 60s George completely bought into the whole peace and love and change the world hippie movement. When that died and so many of them "sold out" and joined the "establishment" it broke his heart.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yeah man. It's a total False Flag Operation.


2/10 effort for the bait effort.

You can do better than that Reap .


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Rolo Tomassi said:


> 2/10 effort for the bait effort.
> 
> You can do better than that Reap .


Calling it a false flag wasn't my idea.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*










The American Dream. 

This guy is living it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> If you give the government too much power they will fuck us. If you give the corporations too much power they will fuck us.
> 
> In an ideal world the government would keep corporations in check through sensible regulation to keep them from fucking us and corporations through sound responsible business plans would do services better than the government to keep them from fucking us.
> 
> What's happened is, instead of keeping each other in check they are working together to fuck us.
> 
> And they are succeeding in that endeavor.


The Government and the Corporations are spit roasting us while the Elites, Politicians and shills cheer on. No wonder porn and fetishes are booming, we're all porn stars now since we've been getting fucked for so long by these people!


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

All politics is theater.

ALL OF IT.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Random thought: 

"Socialism is evil but let me buy my house by drawing money from this large bank that has a giant pool of everyone's money in one place from which they're giving me money to buy my house. But I don't own it however this bank owns this house they paid for with someone else's money. No one is earning interest in their money they gave to the bank anymore as the banks have continued to reduce interest they pay to customers to negligible levels but the bank is earning all of the interest they charge for lending someone else's money. So no one except the bank benefits from money that isn't the bank's in the first place. 

The more I think about it the more I realize that pro-credit capitalists are fucking morons.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Random thought:
> 
> "Socialism is evil but let me buy my house by drawing money from this large bank that has a giant pool of everyone's money in one place from which they're giving me money to buy my house. But I don't own it however this bank owns this house they paid for with someone else's money. No one is earning interest in their money they gave to the bank anymore as the banks have continued to reduce interest they pay to customers to negligible levels but the bank is earning all of the interest they charge for lending someone else's money. So no one except the bank benefits from money that isn't the bank's in the first place.
> 
> The more I think about it the more I realize that pro-credit capitalists are fucking morons.


Credit is why we're fucked. Before the credit crisis, people bought what they needed with cash. It's why people could work hard and afford stuff, no credit. Credit jacks up prices and allows people to purchase stuff they cannot afford. 

There's a reason why usery was outlawed or why the US when founded wasn't exactly pro-bank. In fact I'd say they were pretty anti-banker. Anything that centralized too much power in the hands of the few or that gave droolers too much power they weren't really fond of. :laugh:



Draykorinee said:


> The media coverage? I can't see any coverage, even social media. Where are you getting updates from? Looks like it died from this side of the Channel.
> 
> Some Kill Bill shit going on here


My friend told me but she didn't link a video, she did send me this, it seems they broke into some Ministers office, so I'm not sure because videos are surfacing of the Yellow Jackets still protesting/fighting. 

If it's still going strong then a media blackout maybe in order. I'm sure the Elites are wishing that EU Army was up and running so they could put down these people. I'm not sure tho, she's hardcore into this stuff though. Iunno if she's protesting or not.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Credit is why we're fucked. Before the credit crisis, people bought what they needed with cash. It's why people could work hard and afford stuff, no credit. Credit jacks up prices and allows people to purchase stuff they cannot afford.


This doesn't really tell the whole story though. It's not as simple as people started using credit to buy stuff they could not afford. A lot of the things they started using credit for is stuff they used to be able to afford without credit. A lot of it has to do with the break between productivity and wages. The amount of goods being produced went up and the price of goods went up but the wages did not go up with them. That's why you see statistics like the ratio of CEO to average worker pay was 30-50 times as much 50 years ago and now it's 300-500 times as much.

It's all, of course, by design. It was a way to allow people to still buy the goods being produced while not paying higher wages and creating debt slaves all at the same time. I forget the exact cited numbers but it's something like, if wages kept up with productivity and what they were worth back then, the minimum wage would be over 20 bucks an hour now. People forget but back in the 50s-70s, anyone could get a normal job and make enough money to buy a house and support a family. I'm talking single income homes too. Nowadays, those same jobs might let you rent a small place with multiple incomes needed just to pay for it.

Something else that people forget was that the economy was booming during that era and I don't mean the fake growth stock buyback style "booming" that they say today's economy is. It was real growth built on a strong middle class foundation. The problem is that those at the top keep sucking up more and more wealth to themselves and it doesn't leave enough for everyone else. So we end up with the credit crisis that you see today.

Thus, the problem with capitalism. It is a system designed to funnel wealth to the top. No matter how well the foundation is spread out at the beginning, the end result will always be the same.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

^^Came in here to add these thoughts to @Miss Sally ; response to me. 

It's not unintentional or an unintended consequence of people buying things on credit, but in this particular case an intentional one. This is why throughout the generations across human history you see brief but powerful movements trying to get rid of interest on money lending because everyone knows that the minute you take a loan from someone you've given them power over you. Even Islam (yes, the religion that everyone hates so much) knew the pitfalls of an interest based society as any form of interest is actually forbidden for Muslims. Of course, ironically that is one edict that Muslims refused to follow (opting instead to not eat pork and drink alcohol) because that is one aspect that keeps people from getting rich by exploiting the needs of people. So the elite and the clerics decided that it's ok to not brainwash their masses against interest. "We'll just ignore that one mmmk". 

Most people aren't buying things they don't need on credit. They aren't buying luxuries. This is a myth. Most people in America are underpaid for a decent standard of living so they have little choice _but_ to become debt slaves as Tater says. Most Americans are simply using credit to have basic lives where they can remain productive enough to pay off the debt.

It's just funny to me that idiots continue to praise and support the capitalist credit system while whining and moaning about socialism. The only person who can whine about socialism is the person who can outright go and buy everything on cash upfront. If you can't and you buy anything on a loan, you are buying things from other people's money :Shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






The race-obsessed left.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Elizabeth Warren :lmao

I am not a person of color.

:lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I thought she was 1/512 "person of color"

Or was it 1/1024

:aries2

Democrats talking like it's 1852 and the topic is "quadroons, octaroons, and is your favorite sex slave at the fanciest brothel in town really still not white when she looks like she's from Norway but she has 1/10000th 'colored' blood?" (there were slaves like that)


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> ^^Came in here to add these thoughts to @Miss Sally ; response to me.
> 
> It's not unintentional or an unintended consequence of people buying things on credit, but in this particular case an intentional one. This is why throughout the generations across human history you see brief but powerful movements trying to get rid of interest on money lending because everyone knows that the minute you take a loan from someone you've given them power over you. Even Islam (yes, the religion that everyone hates so much) knew the pitfalls of an interest based society as any form of interest is actually forbidden for Muslims. Of course, ironically that is one edict that Muslims refused to follow (opting instead to not eat pork and drink alcohol) because that is one aspect that keeps people from getting rich by exploiting the needs of people. So the elite and the clerics decided that it's ok to not brainwash their masses against interest. "We'll just ignore that one mmmk".
> 
> Most people aren't buying things they don't need on credit. They aren't buying luxuries. This is a myth. Most people in America are underpaid for a decent standard of living so they have little choice _but_ to become debt slaves as Tater says. Most Americans are simply using credit to have basic lives where they can remain productive enough to pay off the debt.
> 
> It's just funny to me that idiots continue to praise and support the capitalist credit system while whining and moaning about socialism. The only person who can whine about socialism is the person who can outright go and buy everything on cash upfront. If you can't and you buy anything on a loan, you are buying things from other people's money :Shrug


Used to be forbidden for Christians as well, but...


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The delusion and ignorance of socialists never fails :ha


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Thank you for being an enlightened and educated schmuck for defending a system where the bank takes your money and pays you 0.5% and then turns around and charges everyone else up to 20% for lending them a huge collected sum of everyone's money.

:clap


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Did you know that the great American and British and German industrial companies of the second half of the 19th century were actually socialist? They weren't solely financed by cash holdings. Bank loans, bond issues, putting up X amount of money to receive X% of stock in a new company... it wasn't all Andrew Carnegie's money that built his steel empire, there was _other people's money too!_ 

Socialism! 

This is precisely the level of nonsense you should expect from socialists. We've gone from roads are socialist! :heston to loans are socialist! :heston

Cut to the chase and proclaim EVERYTHING IS SOCIALIST! already :woo


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The American Dream.
> 
> This guy is living it.


Next year I'll make over $80,000 and pay 15% of my discretionary income towards student loans. On January 1, 2020 my balance will be higher than it is today. It's a joke. The only way it ever gets paid off is with a government forgiveness program. The payment that I have to make is most of what I would like to putting away towards savings. And every payment I make covers half if the interest.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> This is precisely the level of nonsense you should expect from socialists. We've gone from roads are socialist! :heston to loans are socialist! :heston
> 
> Cut to the chase and proclaim EVERYTHING IS SOCIALIST! already :woo


Of course, it's only "socialism" when it comes to "government handouts" for prospective college students and making sure people are healthy. Because ya know, investing in people to keep them productive doesn't help capitalists at all. Everyone for himself! 

But it's not corporate social welfare statism, when capitalists invest 0 capital, get "loans" from banks that many never pay back, get debt relief which is transferred back to the workers .. oh wait .. oops, the workers are no more because the company went bankrupt despite all the help it got. Oh wait, it's just "capitalism" and "market forces" that we shouldn't plan or account for at all because we must just leave everything up to this smart ass capitalist who never fails. 

Your capitalism that favors bankers and corporates putting corporate social welfare ahead of individual welfare has worked so well so far in continuing to drag America further and further away from the top nations of the world in terms of affordability and lifestyle.



FITZ said:


> Next year I'll make over $80,000 and pay 15% of my discretionary income towards student loans. On January 1, 2020 my balance will be higher than it is today. It's a joke. The only way it ever gets paid off is with a government forgiveness program. The payment that I have to make is most of what I would like to putting away towards savings. And every payment I make covers half if the interest.


Meanwhile, I got an MBA loan-free in Pakistan and managed to make enough money in 8 years that I have been living off of savings (supporting my wife where I can) for 4 years in America. :Shrug

The only things I have on credit are the house we're paying a mortgage on, a washer and dryer, a car and our bed :Shrug 

Not bad all things considered. I try to stay as far away from credit as possible. Picking up 0% card deals wherever I can and paying them off without paying interest.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> Next year I'll make over $80,000 and pay 15% of my discretionary income towards student loans. On January 1, 2020 my balance will be higher than it is today. It's a joke. The only way it ever gets paid off is with a government forgiveness program. The payment that I have to make is most of what I would like to putting away towards savings. And every payment I make covers half if the interest.


Higher education at public institutions increased in price 213% from 1988 to 2018.

At private institutions, 129%. 

Law school tuition rose over 1,000% from 1960 to 2010.

Ask yourself why the increases were so large. Hint: it starts with a g and ends with an overnment.

People would be idiots not to charge as much as possible when it is guaranteed that they will get paid. That's what the government does. It guarantees that regardless of what the price is, it will be paid.

Paying a subsidy to banks who offered guaranteed student loans as the government did from 1965 to 2010, and then starting to make direct guaranteed loans in 1994, and then cutting the banks out entirely as has been the case from 2010-present, is directly responsible for the explosion of student loan debt.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Higher education at public institutions increased in price 213% from 1988 to 2018.
> 
> At private institutions, 129%.
> 
> Ask yourself why the increases were so large. Hint: it starts with a g and ends with an overnment.
> 
> People would be idiots not to charge as much as possible when it is guaranteed that they will get paid. That's what the government does. It guarantees that regardless of what the price is, it will be paid.


I can't remember the last time the government incarcerated anyone for not being able to pay off their student loans. The problem here is that we again have a credit system that is being supported by government guaranteed the rights of the bankers over students in that the student/individual is always under debt to pay. There is no risk to the lender. There is no risk to the university. But the regulation favors the banker over the student since the student is the one that's always obligated to pay. 

How many students in America get debt relief? How many default? How many can declare bankruptcies to get away from having to pay?

The entire higher education system finds itself in the mess it is BECAUSE no one wants to end up in a dead end minimum wage job. The problem is again because of the low wages at the middle class and lower levels. This still goes back to how corporations run themselves (or I should say are allowed to run themselves).


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The government is also partially responsible for the cost of healthcare rising many, many times faster than the rate of inflation over the past 5 decades. The other part is more people living longer and requiring care in their dotage that wasn't provided in earlier times because they were already dead by then. 

Everything the government touches turns to incredibly expensive shit. Socialism!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> The government is also partially responsible for the cost of healthcare rising many, many times faster than the rate of inflation over the past 5 decades. The other part is more people living longer and requiring care in their dotage that wasn't provided in earlier times because they were already dead by then.
> 
> Everything the government touches turns to incredibly expensive shit. Socialism!


And yet, out of the OECD countries, America is the only one that can't find a solution to their healthcare mess. How many OECD countries still have a mess of a healthcare system?

They went far enough and developed plans to actively fix the healthcare issues in their countries :clap 

If we were an actual social welfare state, we would have found a solution to the mess already like all the others have. I say that we haven't gone far enough yet and we need to go further.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Capitalism isn't the problem, it's the people in charge. Power usually corupts.

Any alternative to capitalism that you come up with is susceptible to the same corruption.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Capitalism isn't the problem, it's the people in charge. Power usually corupts.
> 
> Any alternative to capitalism that you come up with is *more* susceptible to the same corruption.


FTFY


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Capitalism isn't the problem, it's the people in charge. Power usually corupts.
> 
> Any alternative to capitalism that you come up with is susceptible to the same corruption.


And yet, all social welfare states that are a hybrid economic system (mostly centrally planned) tend not to have such high levels of corruption and have highly functional Social Welfare Programs and also highly successful economies. 

We're the only ones where somehow there's more corruption, more problems, fewer solutions and less change than most modern societies. 

So the problem is with Americans and our collective consciousness.

I like capitalism. I like having and owning things. But there is definitely a better way to do it than the shitshow that we have in America. And I'm not comparing to the worst in the world. I'm comparing to some of the best nations out there - where we have some sort of successful central planning, as well as social welfare programs, higher wages, more time off and better living standards overall. And no, none of those countries are engaged in full on laissez faire capitalism. Most of them are much more centrally planned than we are.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Easy solution to private debt: go socialist so there is almost nothing to buy and/or almost no money to buy it with. Like in Current Year Venezuela. Or Cuba. Or the Soviet Union. They solved the problem of private debt so damn fast! Why are idiots clinging to capitalism when the solution is staring them right in the face?!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Easy solution to private debt: go socialist so there is almost nothing to buy and/or almost no money to buy it with. Like in Current Year Venezuela. Or Cuba. Or the Soviet Union. They solved the problem of private debt so damn fast! Why are idiots clinging to capitalism when the solution is staring them right in the face?!


I'll take this last hysterical response as your inability to counter. None of the OECD countries are full on socialist, but they don't have the healthcare mess we do. You can't explain that because you split between laissez faire and whatever other option that scares you half to death. You cannot comprehend the existence of a middle ground. 

Good talk.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> And yet, all social welfare states that are a hybrid economic system (mostly centrally planned) tend not to have such high levels of corruption and have highly functional Social Welfare Programs and also highly successful economies.
> 
> We're the only ones where somehow there's more corruption, more problems, fewer solutions and less change than most modern societies.
> 
> So the problem is with Americans and our collective consciousness.
> 
> I like capitalism. I like having and owning things. But there is definitely a better way to do it than the shitshow that we have in America. And I'm not comparing to the worst in the world. I'm comparing to some of the best nations out there - where we have some sort of successful central planning, as well as social welfare programs, higher wages, more time off and better living standards overall. And no, none of those countries are engaged in full on laissez faire capitalism. Most of them are much more centrally planned than we are.


I don't think it's govt's job to enforce wages.

And wages are arbitrary anyways. Minimum wage used to be 2 dollars at one point but that was when the US dollar carried a lot more weight. It's not wages that determine how good the economy is doing, it's the price of goods and services and the average person's accessibility to them.

If you raise the minimum wage then you're probably also going to see the price on everything else go up, including real estate. So no one is making any ground. That is not the key to fixing everything.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I don't think it's govt's job to enforce wages.
> 
> And wages are arbitrary anyways. Minimum wage used to be 2 dollars at one point but that was when the US dollar carried a lot more weight. It's not wages that determine how good the economy is doing, it's the price of goods and services and the average person's accessibility to them.
> 
> If you raise the minimum wage then you're probably also going to see the price on everything else go up, including real estate. So no one is making any ground. That is not the key to fixing everything.


You raise wages to a level the economy can handle - and yes, that math can be done - most economists know how to do that math. But I never suggested raising minimum in my post. You're latching on to one point so that you can argue that one point. 

The context of my post and I'll spell it out to you is that other countries (that are centrally planned and aren't full of corporatist tools) are doing _much _better than America with regards to several key lifestyle metrics. 

We should not ignore that and pretend that everything will be peachy if we give up _more _control to the corporatists (which is not exactly the same as a capitalist) than we _already _do. 

Right now, we're living in a corporatist+government collusion nightmare. The cycle of this collusion needs to break and the only way we can break this is if we put less corporatist friendly lawmakers in government.

But we don't have many anti-corporatists running on either side of the isle. And probably won't for a long ass time.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

France has less corruption, a highly efficient welfare system and a better economy and standard of living than the United States

So does Greece

And Britain

And Germany

And Italy

And Spain

And Belgium

And Holland

OH WAIT NO THEY DON'T :ha

This is exactly the level of accuracy to be expected from socialists

Waiting for the inevitable BUT MUH SCANDINAVIA when no MUH SCANDINAVIAN country has a centrally planned economy and MUH SCANDINAVIA'S total population is a little over 26 million people :heston

There are way more than 26 million people in the United States living at a higher standard of living than the 26 million in Scandinavia BUT NEVER MIND THAT


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I don't think it's govt's job to enforce wages.



yes it is or we would go back to slave labor, do you really want that? 





Berzerker's Beard said:


> And wages are arbitrary anyways. Minimum wage used to be 2 dollars at one point but that was when the US dollar carried a lot more weight. It's not wages that determine how good the economy is doing, it's the price of goods and services and the average person's accessibility to them.


And back then you could get a loaf of bread for like 25 cents or milk for a buck.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> If you raise the minimum wage then you're probably also going to see the price on everything else go up, including real estate. So no one is making any ground. That is not the key to fixing everything.



The cost of everything is always going up anyways and the minimum wage is not keeping up with cost of living. Right now everyone is losing ground when minimum wage does not go up. So at least in your scenario min. wage keeps up with the cost of living.

Also, the more money the middle class has, the more they put it back into the economy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Time to put your BS to rest once and for all. I love how you went about this in such a poorly thought out way. Not surprised. You listed a bunch of metrics, picked out a bunch of countries and just tossed them out. 

Not much for "accuracy" here at all. 

So these are the metrics you have highlighted: Corruption, Welfare System (efficiency can't be measure), never said they had a better economy (just that they had a successful economy. You're obviously twisting since you no longer have an argument and better living standard (which is now measure as HDI) 



deepelemblues said:


> France has less corruption, a highly efficient welfare system and a better economy and living standard than the United States
> 
> So does Greece
> 
> And Britain
> 
> And Germany
> 
> And Italy
> 
> And Spain
> 
> OH WAIT NO THEY DON'T :ha
> 
> This is exactly the level of accuracy to be expected from socialists


Speaking of accuracy. Countries better than the USA (corruption perception index:



> 1	New Zealand	89	90	91	91	91	90	Asia Pacific
> 2	Denmark	88	90	91	92	91	90	Europe and Central Asia
> 3	Finland	85	89	90	89	89	90	Europe and Central Asia
> 3	Norway	85	85	88	86	86	85	Europe and Central Asia
> 3	Switzerland	85	86	86	86	85	86	Europe and Central Asia
> 6	*Singapore	*84	84	85	84	86	87	Asia Pacific
> 6	Sweden	84	88	89	87	89	88	Europe and Central Asia
> 8	*Canada	*82	82	83	81	81	84	Americas
> 8	*Luxembourg	*82	81	85	82	80	80	Europe and Central Asia
> 8	Netherlands	82	83	84	83	83	84	Europe and Central Asia
> 8	*United *Kingdom	82	81	81	78	76	74	Europe and Central Asia
> 12	Germany	81	81	81	79	78	79	Europe and Central Asia
> 13	Australia	77	79	79	80	81	85	Asia Pacific
> 13	Hong Kong	77	77	75	74	75	77	Asia Pacific
> 13	Iceland	77	78	79	79	78	82	Europe and Central Asia
> 16	Austria	75	75	76	72	69	69	Europe and Central Asia
> 16	Belgium	75	77	77	76	75	75	Europe and Central Asia


https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017

You've already been disingenuous about misrepresenting what I said about other countries having successful economies. But that's what you need to do because you're now grasping at straws like you always do. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

HDI:










So, we're 12th (which is not bad, but it is far from this misconception that there is no one that's doing it better than us at least). 

The countries in the top 12 all have hybrid economies with social welfare programs - that elevate the standards of living of their citizens. 

But yeah ... let's ignore everyone that's doing stuff better than us. It allows us to stay in our "American Exceptionalism" bubble. 

BTW, the countries that are doing better than us are not all Scandinavian countries. 

So you literally have never looked beyond the same garbage pro-capitalist arguments that are now an internet right wing meme.

When you have an economy the scale of the US which *is at par per capita *with the rest of the OECD countries (many of whom do have universal healthcare as well), you can definitely find a way to fix this nonsense here.

Deep, you're no better than your typical Fox News anchor with regards "BUT HOW CAN WE PAY FOR IT ERMAGURD" ... 

China did it btw. They have Universal Healthcare too now. And their economy is not shrinking, nor a mess as a result. But for some reason, if we try it'll be apocalyptic! 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851015001864


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> This doesn't really tell the whole story though. It's not as simple as people started using credit to buy stuff they could not afford. A lot of the things they started using credit for is stuff they used to be able to afford without credit. A lot of it has to do with the break between productivity and wages. The amount of goods being produced went up and the price of goods went up but the wages did not go up with them. That's why you see statistics like the ratio of CEO to average worker pay was 30-50 times as much 50 years ago and now it's 300-500 times as much.
> 
> It's all, of course, by design. It was a way to allow people to still buy the goods being produced while not paying higher wages and creating debt slaves all at the same time. I forget the exact cited numbers but it's something like, if wages kept up with productivity and what they were worth back then, the minimum wage would be over 20 bucks an hour now. People forget but *back in the 50s-70s, anyone could get a normal job and make enough money to buy a house and support a family.* I'm talking single income homes too. Nowadays, those same jobs might let you rent a small place with multiple incomes needed just to pay for it.
> 
> Something else that people forget was that the economy was booming during that era and I don't mean the fake growth stock buyback style "booming" that they say today's economy is. It was real growth built on a strong middle class foundation. The problem is that those at the top keep sucking up more and more wealth to themselves and it doesn't leave enough for everyone else. So we end up with the credit crisis that you see today.
> 
> Thus, the problem with capitalism. It is a system designed to funnel wealth to the top. No matter how well the foundation is spread out at the beginning, the end result will always be the same.


Yup I've talked about it before, you didn't need to work 2-3 jobs. Yes you had to work hard but hard work during that time paid off. In fact Employees and Employers were loyal to each other. CEOs and higherups had to know what they were doing, screwing up wasn't accepted. 

Another thing that helped was the money stayed within the US, the majority of the stuff you bought was made by other Americans, it kept the economy going. The stuff was also well made, by people who had pride in their work. When you have a great relationship with workers and the people who run the company, stuff just gets done better.

Sadly we'll never have that time period back again, housing costs keep going up, rent is skyrocketing and wages and jobs have stagnated. Companies just laugh and move across the border and sell stuff here without having to pay decent wages. 

I'm not sure how it can be fixed, if it ever can be.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

These countries are so much better at it that the introduction of somewhere around 1.5 million immigrants to the Continent three years ago, split among a double handful of countries, has caused incredible strain in these countries politically, socially, economically, and in the fiscal health of their governments. The standard of living of these migrants is well below that which socialists enjoy braying about.

Meanwhile, the United States takes in about 1.5 million immigrants annually, without experiencing the scope or the depth of such problems. And it is not an apples to oranges comparison. In the last 3 years, the United States has taken in more uneducated, unskilled immigrants than Europe did in those 3 years. The United States has proven far superior at educating, employing, and integrating these immigrants than the Europeans have for the immigrants in Chemnitz, or the banlieues of Paris, or Malmo, or Grorudallen. Or for the children or grandchildren of the immigrants of the 1960s and 1970s, many of whom still reside in slums. 

But the mythical superiority of Europe will never die :draper2



Miss Sally said:


> Yup I've talked about it before, you didn't need to work 2-3 jobs. Yes you had to work hard but hard work during that time paid off. In fact Employees and Employers were loyal to each other. CEOs and higherups had to know what they were doing, screwing up wasn't accepted.
> 
> Another thing that helped was the money stayed within the US, the majority of the stuff you bought was made by other Americans, it kept the economy going. The stuff was also well made, by people who had pride in their work. When you have a great relationship with workers and the people who run the company, stuff just gets done better.
> 
> Sadly we'll never have that time period back again, housing costs keep going up, rent is skyrocketing and wages and jobs have stagnated. Companies just laugh and move across the border and sell stuff here without having to pay decent wages.
> 
> I'm not sure how it can be fixed, if it ever can be.


5.5% of employed Americans work more than one job.

This means that 94.5% of employed Americans do not.

Housing costs have skyrocketed and are skyrocketing (in some areas) because of the government. Areas like New York and California. Areas like Texas, no. Because government policy in Texas regarding housing is not generally retarded.

I'm not sure what world you are living in, but in the real one, screwing up by CEOs and higherups is not generally accepted. Not in companies that remain in operation. 

The standard of living was lower in this golden age you speak of where most money stayed in America, than it is today. Of course, most money still remains in America. Imports of goods and services as a % of GDP in 2016 was about 14.7%. 

So.

It's obvious that actual facts have no place in this discussion. Carry on.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> These countries are so much better at it that the introduction of somewhere around 1.5 million immigrants to the Continent three years ago, split among a double handful of countries, has caused incredible strain in these countries politically, socially, economically, and in the fiscal health of their governments. The standard of living of these migrants is well below that which socialists enjoy braying about.
> 
> Meanwhile, the United States takes in about 1.5 million immigrants annually, without experiencing the scope or the depth of such problems. And it is not an apples to oranges comparison. In the last 3 years, the United States has taken in more uneducated, unskilled immigrants than Europe did in those 3 years. The United States has proven far superior at educating, employing, and integrating these immigrants than the Europeans have for the immigrants in Chemnitz, or the banlieues of Paris, or Malmo, or Grorudallen. Or for the children or grandchildren of the immigrants of the 1960s and 1970s, many of whom still reside in slums.
> 
> But the mythical superiority of Europe will never die :draper2


Deflection. 

But ok. 

I have no clue why I was expecting anything better than you circling the right wing bingo considering now you moved a debate about universal healthcare and fixing America's current problems to talking about immigrants ... :shrug


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Right now, we're living in a corporatist+government collusion nightmare.


There's a word for that.



Miss Sally said:


> Yup I've talked about it before, you didn't need to work 2-3 jobs. Yes you had to work hard but hard work during that time paid off. In fact Employees and Employers were loyal to each other. CEOs and higherups had to know what they were doing, screwing up wasn't accepted.
> 
> Another thing that helped was the money stayed within the US, the majority of the stuff you bought was made by other Americans, it kept the economy going. The stuff was also well made, by people who had pride in their work. When you have a great relationship with workers and the people who run the company, stuff just gets done better.
> 
> Sadly we'll never have that time period back again, housing costs keep going up, rent is skyrocketing and wages and jobs have stagnated. Companies just laugh and move across the border and sell stuff here without having to pay decent wages.
> 
> I'm not sure how it can be fixed, if it ever can be.


It can't be fixed. At least, not in any traditional fashion. Old methods will not work in a technologically advanced future. But, people are so wedded to those old methods that they will not let go of them either. So, we'll keep using the old methods until the entire system breaks down. At that point lies our only chance of fixing anything. It certainly can never happen as long as the current power structure remains in place.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> There's a word for that.


Oligarchy


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Oligarchy


Close but no cigar.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Close but no cigar.


Plutocracy?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Plutocracy?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Oligarchy is pretty broad term. It doesn't care what specific few rule a nation.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

When Cenk Uygur makes sense and sounds reasonable, you know how fucked things are


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> When Cenk Uygur makes sense and sounds reasonable, you know how fucked things are


I've always wondered how long it will take for him and Kyle to figure out that they're never going to be able to take over the Democrat party. Jimmy figured it out a long time ago.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I've always wondered how long it will take for him and Kyle to figure out that they're never going to be able to take over the Democrat party. Jimmy figured it out a long time ago.


Thats why they need to lose in 2020. They need to be crushed and laid low bad enough that actual liberals can take it and reform it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Thats why they need to lose in 2020. They need to be crushed and laid low bad enough that actual liberals can take it and reform it.


Establishment/corporatist democrats don't lose even when the republicans win. And most liberals here don't know the difference between an actual liberal and a fake one. All they need to be told is a few liberal buzzwords and that's it.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> When Cenk Uygur makes sense and sounds reasonable, you know how fucked things are


fpalm

None of this shit would create jobs or raise tax revenue sometime in the future. It's not intended to

Spend 100 billion a year why not spend 1 trillion a year

Why not 10 trillion a year

Figure it out. It's a game to give money obtained through taxation or borrowing from ChinaJapan or borrowed from out of thin fucking air to favored, connected groups and individuals now and has no connection to any coherent 'plan for the future.' It's not intended to have any such connection. It's intended to fill the pig trough which gets deeper every second of every day. As intended

The future of progressive 'investment' is California's High Speed Rail project. Promises whose only criterion is that they sound good, that will never be delivered on even if the project is completed as envisioned (as it won't be, just like the CHSR, originally promised to be fully completed from Frisco to LA by 2022 including extensions to Sacramento and San Diego, now the projection is that only the first segment from San Jose to Bakersfield will be completed by 2029), with costs that end up being 2-3 times the initial prediction at a minimum ($33 billion to $98 billion for the "core segment" from Frisco to LA, and no way would it cost 'only' $98 billion, plus however many tens of billions for the extensions). The CSHRA (California High Speed Rail Authority) has incurred billions in additional costs by beginning construction prematurely in the Central Valley. Billions are slated to be spent on construction of unnecessary tunnels and viaducts at the planned Bay Area HSR station. $5 billion in costs will be added by routing the line into the Central Valley through the Tehachapi Pass rather than the Tejon Pass. Why? Well, there are some rather important and influential real estate developers who want it to go through Tehachapi rather than Tejon. 

Contracting company Parsons Brinckerhoff received $666 million for "engineering consulting" on the HSR. An auditor hired by the CHSRA determined that Parsons Brinckerhoff had not delivered finished work on 145 of the 184 projects it was contracted. 

As long as the right people get their spot at the trough, who the fuck cares though? 

Why would it be ANY different with the ultimate feeding frenzy of them all, triple digit billions of dollars a year from Washington DC? 

What makes you people trust anything you're told about how this great project or that great project is gonna cost this and achieve that? How many times you gonna be Charlie Brown before you stop believing Lucy?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Plutocracy?


Tim is right, these privileged middle class "Progressives" need to fuck off with their assumption that because they had an easy life that everyone who looks like them did too. Though not at all surprising given their bigotry of low expectations pops up when they meet someone a slightly darker shade than them.

Bitching on Twitter is all they do, it's why catering to these whiny idiots when it comes to Social Media and Entertainment backfires, they're not a majority. He's also right about them expecting magical moments. That's why many are obsessed with Harry Potter etc. I've said it before, these people don't really care, they just want to be part of a movement.

His takes on AOC are spot on. One day Gen Z is going to put Millennials in concentration camps. :laugh:



virus21 said:


> When Cenk Uygur makes sense and sounds reasonable, you know how fucked things are


Given this guy didn't even know The Young Turks were basically Turkish Hitler Youth says a lot when he is waking up to the situation. 



Tater said:


> I've always wondered how long it will take for him and Kyle to figure out that they're never going to be able to take over the Democrat party. Jimmy figured it out a long time ago.


Justice Democrats interested me until 3rd wave Feminists and Establishment Democrats began corrupting it. Same stuff happened to Atheism+, any group, entertainment, Political Movement gets infiltrated and corrupted by these people.



Reaper said:


> Establishment/corporatist democrats don't lose even when the republicans win. And most liberals here don't know the difference between an actual liberal and a fake one. All they need to be told is a few liberal buzzwords and that's it.


Always knew there was a difference, didn't know how much. Like when I first went to College I met actual Liberals who were like "uh yeah we believe in Free Speech and the Constitution and no Political Correctness." The "Leftists" have co-opted Liberalism so badly that most people don't know what a real Liberal looks like. 

I'm glad Tater/LC are around because the "Leftist" skin walkers are always trying to fool everyone. :O


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-elections-interference/



> The release of two Senate-commissioned reports has sparked a new round of panic about Russia manipulating a vulnerable American public on social media. Headlines warn that Russian trolls have tried to suppress the African-American vote, promote Green Party candidate Jill Stein, recruit “assets,” and “sow discord” or “hack the 2016 election” via sex-toy ads and Pokémon Go. “The studies,” writes David Ignatius of The Washington Post, “describe a sophisticated, multilevel Russian effort to use every available tool of our open society to create resentment, mistrust and social disorder,” demonstrating that the Russians, “thanks to the Internet…seem to be perfecting these dark arts.” According to Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times, “it looks increasingly as though” Russian disinformation “changed the direction of American history” in the narrowly decided 2016 election, when “Russian trolling easily could have made the difference.”
> 
> The reports, from the University of Oxford’s Computational Propaganda Research Project and the firm New Knowledge, do provide the most thorough look at Russian social-media activity to date. With an abundance of data, charts, graphs, and tables, coupled with extensive qualitative analysis, the authors scrutinize the output of the Internet Research Agency (IRA) the Russian clickbait firm indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller in February 2018. On every significant metric, it is difficult to square the data with the dramatic conclusions that have been drawn.
> 
> • 2016 Election Content: The most glaring data point is how minimally Russian social-media activity pertained to the 2016 campaign. The New Knowledge report acknowledges that evaluating IRA content “purely based on whether it definitively swung the election is too narrow a focus,” as the “explicitly political content was a small percentage.” To be exact, just “11% of the total content” attributed to the IRA and 33 percent of user engagement with it “was related to the election.” The IRA’s posts “were minimally about the candidates,” with “roughly 6% of tweets, 18% of Instagram posts, and 7% of Facebook posts” having “mentioned Trump or Clinton by name.”
> 
> • Scale: The researchers claim that “the scale of [the Russian] operation was unprecedented,” but they base that conclusion on dubious figures. They repeat the widespread claim that Russian posts “reached 126 million people on Facebook,” which is in fact a spin on Facebook’s own guess. “Our best estimate,” Facebook’s Colin Stretch testified to Congress in October 2017, “is that approximately 126 million people may have been served one of these [IRA] stories at some time during the two year period” between 2015 and 2017. According to Stretch, posts generated by suspected Russian accounts showing up in Facebook’s News Feed amounted to “approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content.”
> 
> • Spending: Also hurting the case that the Russians reached a large number of Americans is that they spent such a microscopic amount of money to do it. Oxford puts the IRA’s Facebook spending between 2015 and 2017 at just $73,711. As was previously known, about $46,000 was spent on Russian-linked Facebook ads before the 2016 election. That amounts to about 0.05 percent of the $81 million spent on Facebook ads by the Clinton and Trump campaigns combined. A recent disclosure by Google that Russian-linked accounts spent $4,700 on platforms in 2016 only underscores how minuscule that spending was. The researchers also claim that the IRA’s “manipulation of American political discourse had a budget that exceeded $25 million USD.” But that number is based on a widely repeated error that mistakes the IRA’s spending on US-related activities for its parent project’s overall global budget, including domestic social-media activity in Russia.
> 
> • Sophistication: Another reason to question the operation’s sophistication can be found by simply looking at its offerings. The IRA’s most shared pre-election Facebook post was a cartoon of a gun-wielding Yosemite Sam. Over on Instagram, the best-received image urged users to give it a “Like” if they believe in Jesus. The top IRA post on Facebook before the election to mention Hillary Clinton was a conspiratorial screed about voter fraud. It’s telling that those who are so certain Russian social-media posts affected the 2016 election never cite the posts that they think actually helped achieve that end. The actual content of those posts might explain why.
> 
> • Covert or Clickbait Operation? Far from exposing a sophisticated propaganda campaign, the reports provide more evidence that the Russians were actually engaging in clickbait capitalism: targeting unique demographics like African Americans or evangelicals in a bid to attract large audiences for commercial purposes. Reporters who have profiled the IRA have commonly described it as “a social media marketing campaign.” Mueller’s indictment of the IRA disclosed that it sold “promotions and advertisements” on its pages that generally sold in the $25-$50 range. “This strategy,” Oxford observes, “is not an invention for politics and foreign intrigue, it is consistent with techniques used in digital marketing.” New Knowledge notes that the IRA even sold merchandise that “perhaps provided the IRA with a source of revenue,” hawking goods such as T-shirts, “LGBT-positive sex toys and many variants of triptych and 5-panel artwork featuring traditionally conservative, patriotic themes.”
> 
> • “Asset Development”: Lest one wonder how promoting sex toys might factor into a sophisticated influence campaign, the New Knowledge report claims that exploiting “sexual behavior” was a key component of the IRA’s “expansive” “human asset recruitment strategy” in the United States. “Recruiting an asset by exploiting a personal vulnerability,” the report explains, “is a timeless espionage practice.” The first example of this timeless espionage practice is of an ad featuring Jesus consoling a dejected young man by telling him: “Struggling with the addiction to masturbation? Reach out to me and we will beat it together.” It is unknown if this particular tactic brought any assets into the fold. But New Knowledge reports that there was “some success with several of these human-activation attempts.” That is correct: The IRA’s online trolls apparently succeeded in sparking protests in 2016, like several in Florida where “it’s unclear if anyone attended”; “no people showed up to at least one,” and “ragtag groups” showed up at others, including one where video footage captured a crowd of eight people. The most successful effort appears to have been in Houston, where Russian trolls allegedly organized dueling rallies pitting a dozen white supremacists against several dozen counter-protesters outside an Islamic center.
> 
> Based on all of this data, we can draw this picture of Russian social-media activity: It was mostly unrelated to the 2016 election; microscopic in reach, engagement, and spending; and juvenile or absurd in its content. This leads to the inescapable conclusion, as the New Knowledge study acknowledges, that “the operation’s focus on elections was merely a small subset” of its activity. They qualify that “accurate” narrative by saying it “misses nuance and deserves more contextualization.” Alternatively, perhaps it deserves some minimal reflection that a juvenile social-media operation with such a small focus on elections is being widely portrayed as a seismic threat that may well have decided the 2016 contest.
> 
> Doing so leads us to conclusions that have nothing to do with Russian social-media activity, nor with the voters supposedly influenced by it. Take the widespread speculation that Russian social-media posts may have suppressed the black vote. That a Russian troll farm sought to deceive black audiences and other targeted demographics on social media is certainly contemptible. But in criticizing that effort there’s no reason to assume it was successful—and yet that’s exactly what the pundits did. “When you consider the narrow margins by which [Donald Trump] won [Michigan and Wisconsin], and poor minority turnout there, these Russian voter suppression efforts may have been decisive,” former Obama adviser David Axelrod commented. “Black voter turnout declined in 2016 for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election,” The New York Times conspicuously notes, “but it is impossible to determine whether that was the result of the Russian campaign.”
> 
> That it is even considered possible that the Russian campaign impacted the black vote displays a rather stunning paternalism and condescension. Would Axelrod, Times reporters, or any of the others floating a similar scenario accept a suggestion that their own votes might be susceptible to silly social-media posts mostly unrelated to the election? If not, what does that tell us about their attitudes toward the people that they presume could be so vulnerable?


The Russians are coming to influence YOUR election with pictures of Yosemite Sam! And dildos! And double entendres about jerking off, featuring Jesus! :ha

Also to trick those black people because they're apparently so easily tricked. 

This is your American Left that respects and cares for black people so very, _very_ much after all.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

As it stands, Tim Pool and Styxx are my top choices for political youtube content. I watch a lot of other stuff too tho.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082317138432540673
For all their criticism of the MSM, TYT aren't much better evidently. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082317138432540673
> For all their criticism of the MSM, TYT aren't much better evidently. :lol


At the time it was reported the shooter was white because 4 eyewitnesses claimed the shooter was white. Fact is Trump still ignored it when the shooter was said to be white.

Why wouldn't TYT delete the videos that were wrong? They also made a video correcting what the news reported when they said the shooter was white

How is it TYT fault they reported what the eyewitnesses said? You don't even make any sense CP and LOL at using Infowars as a source yet again.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> At the time it was reported the shooter was white because 4 eyewitnesses claimed the shooter was white. Fact is Trump still ignored it when the shooter was said to be white.
> 
> Why wouldn't TYT delete the videos that were wrong? They also made a video correcting what the news reported when they said the shooter was white
> 
> How is it TYT fault they reported what the eyewitnesses said? You don't even make any sense CP and LOL at using Infowars as a source yet again.


The problem is they pushed out videos and news that simply wasn't true. In an effort to shit on Trump as much as possible, they didn't wait for all the facts to come out before publishing a story, which is an incredibly sloppy blunder. They pushed a false narrative in effort to grand stand and call Trump a racist by claiming he blatantly ignored the situation. That is what people would call "fake news". They cared more about calling Trump a racist than they cared about the 7 year old who got killed. When your hate for the president is more important to you than the facts and the victims, there's a major problem with their journalism . 

Please quit the BS too btw. There's nothing he could have done that would have satisfied you. If he commented on it, and then it came out the shooter was really black you'd say he's stupid for not waiting for all the facts etc etc . Had he commented and the shooter was white, you'd complain that he didn't really care about the victim or you'd complain about how he said something.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Tim is right, these privileged middle class "Progressives" need to fuck off with their assumption that because they had an easy life that everyone who looks like them did too. Though not at all surprising given their bigotry of low expectations pops up when they meet someone a slightly darker shade than them.
> 
> Bitching on Twitter is all they do, it's why catering to these whiny idiots when it comes to Social Media and Entertainment backfires, they're not a majority. He's also right about them expecting magical moments. That's why many are obsessed with Harry Potter etc. I've said it before, these people don't really care, they just want to be part of a movement.
> 
> His takes on AOC are spot on. One day Gen Z is going to put Millennials in concentration camps. :laugh:
> 
> 
> Given this guy didn't even know The Young Turks were basically Turkish Hitler Youth says a lot when he is waking up to the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Democrats interested me until 3rd wave Feminists and Establishment Democrats began corrupting it. Same stuff happened to Atheism+, any group, entertainment, Political Movement gets infiltrated and corrupted by these people.
> 
> 
> 
> Always knew there was a difference, didn't know how much. Like when I first went to College I met actual Liberals who were like "uh yeah we believe in Free Speech and the Constitution and no Political Correctness." The "Leftists" have co-opted Liberalism so badly that most people don't know what a real Liberal looks like.
> 
> I'm glad Tater/LC are around because the "Leftist" skin walkers are always trying to fool everyone. :O


Had to look up what Skin Walkers were:



> In Navajo culture, a skin-walker (Navajo: yee naaldlooshii) is a type of harmful witch who has the ability to turn into, possess, or disguise themselves as an animal. The term is not used for healers.


Yeesh


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Had to look up what Skin Walkers were:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeesh












I saw it in an episodes of The X-Files.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Surprised people don't know what skinwalkers are. They're like the Navajo version of Werewolves only they can supposedly also mimic the appearance of other people as well.

It's also a crappy 2006 direct to video movie.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Had to look up what Skin Walkers were:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeesh


I couldn't think of a better term for them. I thought it fit perfectly :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...eres-no-reason-for-us-troops-to-be-in-somalia



> President Trump’s troop withdrawals keep on coming.
> 
> First, there was the president’s Dec. 19 tweet declaring victory against the Islamic State and the subsequent reports that the 2,000-strong U.S. ground presence in eastern Syria would be pulled out.
> 
> 
> Then, less than 24 hours later, the Wall Street Journal reported on White House deliberations on Afghanistan, where about 7,000 troops may be scheduled for redeployment orders as well. The two decisions produced a collective Washington freakout, with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigning his post in protest and ex-generals writing op-eds about how catastrophic Trump’s policy would be.
> 
> Now, we have learned of a third overseas conflict Trump wants to downsize.
> 
> According to a Jan. 3 report from NBC News, the Trump administration is in the process of preparing a decrease in U.S. military operations in Somalia, the Horn of Africa nation that has long been a euphemism for death and anarchy. Before Mattis left the Pentagon, he issued an order down the chain of command that one anonymous official described as “narrowing” the mission. The CIA, rather than the military, may soon be doing the bulk of the counterterrorism work there.
> 
> Somalia will be forever etched into Americans’ minds as the place where the militiamen downed a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter in the streets of Mogadishu. Most Americans may be surprised to learn there are any U.S. troops still in Somalia, let alone the 500 currently stationed in several different outposts.
> 
> In reality, Somalia has been one of the main fronts in the forever war known as the war on terrorism since at least the Obama administration. The U.S. conducted 45 air strikes in the country against al Shabab and Islamic State targets in 2018, ten more than the previous year. The latest attack occurred on Jan. 2, when 10 al Shabab militants were killed in a single strike. Since 2017, U.S. forces have been operating on looser authority courtesy of the Trump administration; U.S. pilots are no longer required to confirm that the al Shabaab terrorist in their gunsights is an imminent threat to Americans before releasing the missile. On the ground, Green Berets and Navy Seals are training, advising, and, in some scenarios, fighting with their African Union and Somali partners during specific raids.
> 
> Trump now apparently wants the military out of the Somali badlands, either because he sees the job of killing the bad guys as largely complete or because he doesn’t believe it is America’s responsibility to perform a job the Somali government should be doing itself.
> 
> The last point is well taken. While al Shabab is unquestionably a heinous terrorist organization, the vast majority of its targets are Somali or African Union facilities, buildings, and bases. They are essentially a group of thugs and killers who seek to overthrow the current government in Mogadishu and rule Somalia under their own dogmatic interpretation of Islam. Like the Pakistani Taliban and the Islamic State-affiliated militants in the Sinai, the al Shabab rig cars with explosives, send suicide bombers into crowds, ambush local soldiers, and extort the population. All of this is terrible for Somalis.
> 
> But as cynical as it sounds, it doesn’t mean a whole lot to the security of Americans.
> 
> As another U.S. official commented in the NBC story, "Not every nasty character out there is a threat to the U.S.” Again, this sounds cynical and heartless at first. But alas, it’s also the truth: There are hundreds of terrorist groups around the world who blow up themselves and try to turn the population against their government, but not all of them are worthy of a direct U.S. military response. The U.S. armed forces are not a magical, global counterterrorism force meant for everyone’s use. Even if they were, not all terrorist groups are created equal; some are so small and ineffective that dispatching U.S. troops to flush them out would be a waste of money and a disincentive for local authorities to confront the problem on their own.
> 
> Trump understands the concept. It may take awhile for the rest of Washington to come to the same realization.


Bring them all home (Y)


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Plutocracy?


On one hand I agree with him about a lot of entitled whiny twitter warriors,on the other that they don't register to vote makes them a lazy generation isn't bore out in statistics. Every single generation register's and vote in low pertenages. Gen X,Boomer's WW2 etc also voted in lower number then the rest of the population when they were in their 20's. Just like whoever is 65+ always vote in a high %


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

That progressive takeover huh


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *At the time it was reported the shooter was white because 4 eyewitnesses claimed the shooter was white. Fact is Trump still ignored it when the shooter was said to be white.*
> 
> Why wouldn't TYT delete the videos that were wrong? They also made a video correcting what the news reported when they said the shooter was white
> 
> How is it TYT fault they reported what the eyewitnesses said? You don't even make any sense CP and LOL at using Infowars as a source yet again.


Do you think it's the president's job to tweet out every time someone is shot? Trump's twitter is mostly political theater and troll stuff to begin with.

Even going off the strength of the eyewitness, why would TYT presume it was a hate crime and that it was racially motivated? Why jump to that conclusion without hearing any of the facts or waiting for any evidence to come out? They knew *nothing*, yet they produced FOUR videos in which they lump the shooter into a conversation about Trump and racist white supremacists. 

You don't see anything wrong with this?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.pr...n-s-tlaib-shifts-position-on-israel-1.6387175

So of the two new Muslim congresswomen one of them is openly anti-Semitic in accusing Israel of "hypnotizing the world" (common anti-Semitic slur) and the other pretended to support a two-state solution so Jews would support her and then changed her position as soon as she got elected. :lol 

Diversity. :nerd: Islam is just a religion. :nerd: Thinking Muslims will lie to attain power and then push the interests of radical Islam (aka Islam) is just Islamophobia. :nerd:


----------



## Deathstroke

*Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.pr...n-s-tlaib-shifts-position-on-israel-1.6387175
> 
> So of the two new Muslim congresswoman one of them is openly anti-Semitic in accusing Israel of "hypnotizing the world" (common anti-Semitic slur) and the other pretended to support a two-state solution so Jews would support her and then changed her position as soon as she got elected. :lol
> 
> Diversity. :nerd: Islam is just a religion. :nerd: Thinking Muslims will lie to attain power and then push the interests of radical Islam (aka Islam) is just Islamophobia. :nerd:




Jesus. This will mostly be swept under the rug unfortunately considering the left tends to side against Israel these days and you can’t dare criticize Muslims or Islam.

I wonder if her base will care that she went back on her word on the two-state solution?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Do you think it's the president's job to tweet out every time someone is shot? Trump's twitter is mostly political theater and troll stuff to begin with.
> 
> Even going off the strength of the eyewitness, why would TYT presume it was a hate crime and that it was racially motivated? Why jump to that conclusion without hearing any of the facts or waiting for any evidence to come out? They knew *nothing*, yet they produced FOUR videos in which they lump the shooter into a conversation about Trump and racist white supremacists.
> 
> You don't see anything wrong with this?


I think you missed their point. Their point was whenever a shooter fits Trump's agenda he will tweet out about it but when it's not he is silent.

Again they knew what was REPORTED by EYEWITNESSES, and Trump is a racist regardless of what happened with this shooter.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Eventually, the tolerance of hatred for groups it is approved to hate is going to hurt the left. It already bears some measure of responsibility for :trump being president. Even if it's just 10% or 5% of the reason he won, take out that 10 or 5% and he probably wouldn't have won. 

People can't be divided and judged in this fashion without getting scared and pissed off.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Trump is a racist no matter what the facts are. :side:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/8/newsom-seeks-add-illegal-immigrants-health-care/



> California Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks to add more illegal immigrants to state health care plan
> Newly sworn-in Democrat defies White House by promising 'sanctuary to all who seek it'
> 
> Newly sworn-in California Gov. Gavin Newsom, vowing to provide “sanctuary to all who seek it,” has proposed extending state health care coverage to more illegal immigrants living within the Golden State’s borders.
> 
> Hours after assuming office, Mr. Newsom released sweeping health care proposals to raise the age limit for illegal aliens covered by Medi-Cal from 19 to 26, which would make California “the first state in the nation to cover young undocumented adults through a state Medicaid program,” according to a Monday release from the governor’s office.
> 
> Mr. Newsom, who ran on a universal health care platform, also proposed expanding Obamacare subsidies to middle-class earners and reinstating the Obamacare individual mandate at the state level.
> 
> “No state has more at stake on the issue of health care. California must lead,” said Mr. Newsom in a statement. “We will use our market power and our moral power to demand fairer prices for prescription drugs. And we will continue to move closer to ensuring health care for every Californian.”


Absolutely treasonous. 

New York already does this so ye if you want to know what the Democratic Party is really about (aside from all the terrible stuff they agree with the GOP on), just look at how they govern in the most liberal states in the country. Serving the interests of Americans is not in the playbook.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/8/newsom-seeks-add-illegal-immigrants-health-care/
> 
> Absolutely treasonous.
> 
> New York already does this so ye if you want to know what the Democratic Party is really about (aside from all the terrible stuff they agree with the GOP on), just look at how they govern in the most liberal states in the country. Serving the interests of Americans is not in the playbook.


LOL at calling that treasonous when you defend Trump and his collusion with Russia


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Nullification back in vogue!

Wonder how much they'll like it if they pass a major restrictive new federal gun law sometime in the future and 30-40 states say yeah fuck your law


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

People often talk about GOP bingo on Facebook, but man Russia would fill the entire board on the other side.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Smarkslayer said:


> People often talk about GOP bingo on Facebook, but man Russia would fill the entire board on the other side.


yeah because there is tons of evidence with Trump and Russia.

Go figure


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah because there is tons of evidence with Trump and Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure




Yes, all that evidence of how Russia is involved in California’s plan to expand its Medicaid program for undocumented Americans is overwhelming.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

A very important new development with regards to flooding the internet with more Neo-con propaganda, but I doubt anyone's paying attention *sigh*

I guess it's enough to simply call yourself a "free" country, even if the actual level of freedom is debateable. 



> *A New Narrative Control Firm Works To Destroy Alternative Media
> *
> 
> The frenzied, hysterical Russia narrative being promoted day in and day out by western mass media has had two of its major stories ripped to shreds in the last three days.
> 
> A report seeded throughout the mainstream media by anonymous intelligence officials back in September claimed that US government workers in Cuba had suffered concussion-like brain damage after hearing strange noises in homes and hotels with the most likely culprit being “sophisticated microwaves or another type of electromagnetic weapon” from Russia. A recording of one such highly sophisticated attack was analyzed by scientists and turned out to be the mating call of the male indies short-tailed cricket. Neurologists and other brain specialists have challenged the claim that any US government workers suffered any neurological damage of any kind, saying test results on the alleged victims were misinterpreted. The actual story, when stripped of hyperventilating Russia panic, is that some government workers heard some crickets in Cuba.
> 
> Another report which dominated news headlines all of yesterday claimed that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort (the same Paul Manafort who the Guardian falsely claimed met with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy) had shared polling data with a Russian associate and asked him to pass it along to Oleg Deripaska, who is often labeled a “Russian oligarch” by western media. The polling data was mostly public already, and the rest was just more polling information shared in the spring of 2016, but Deripaska’s involvement had Russiagaters burning the midnight oil with breathless excitement. Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall went so far as to publish an article titled “The ‘Collusion’ Debate Ended Last Night”, substantiating his click-generating headline with the claim that “What’s crystal clear is that the transfer to Kilimnik came with explicit instructions to give the information to Deripaska. And that’s enough.”
> 
> Except Manafort didn’t give any explicit instructions to share the polling data with Deripaska, but with two Ukrainian oligarchs (who are denying it). The New York Times was forced to print this embarrassing correction to the story it broke, adding in the process that Manafort’s motivation was likely not collusion, but money.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083094054450200581
> These are just the latest in a long, ongoing pattern of terrible mass media debacles as reporters eager to demonstrate their unquestioning fealty to the US-centralized empire fall all over themselves to report any story that makes Russia look bad without practicing due diligence. The only voices who have been questioning the establishment Russia narrative that is being fed to mass media outlets by secretive government agencies have been those which the mass media refuses to platform. Alternative media outlets are the only major platforms for dissent from the authorized narratives of the plutocrat-owned political/media class.
> 
> Imagine, then, how disastrous it would be if these last strongholds of skepticism and holding power to account were removed from the media landscape. Well, that’s exactly what a shady organization called NewsGuard is trying to do, with some success already.
> 
> A new report by journalist Whitney Webb for MintPress News details how NewsGuard is working to hide and demonetize alternative media outlets like MintPress, marketing itself directly to tech companies, social media platforms, libraries and schools. NewsGuard is led by some of the most virulently pro-imperialist individuals in America, and its agenda to shore up narrative control for the ruling power establishment is clear.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083127525952442368
> The product which NewsGuard markets to the general public is a browser plugin which advises online media consumers whether a news media outlet is trustworthy or untrustworthy based on a formula with a very pro-establishment bias which sees outlets like Fox News and the US propaganda outlet Voice of America getting trustworthy ratings while outlets like RT get very low ratings for trustworthiness. This plugin dominates the bulk of what comes up when you start researching NewsGuard, but circulating a plugin which individual internet users can voluntarily download to help their rulers control their minds is not one of the more nefarious agendas being pursued by this company. The full MintPress article gives a thorough breakdown of the yucky things NewsGuard has its fingers in, but here’s a summary of five of its more disturbing revelations:
> 
> 1. The company has created a service called BrandGuard, billed as a “brand safety tool aimed at helping advertisers keep their brands off of unreliable news and information sites while giving them the assurance they need to support thousands of Green-rated [i.e., Newsguard-approved] news and information sites, big and small.” Popularizing the use of this service will attack the advertising revenue of unapproved alternative media outlets which run ads. NewsGuard is aggressively marketing this service to “ad tech firms, leading agencies, and major advertisers”.
> 
> 2. NewsGuard’s advisory board reads like the fellowships list of a neocon think tank, and indeed one of its CEOs, Louis Gordon Crovitz, is a Council on Foreign Relations member who has worked with the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation. Members of the advisory board include George W Bush’s Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, deep intelligence community insider Michael Hayden, and the Obama administration’s Richard Stengel, who once publicly supported the need for domestic propaganda in the US. All of these men have appeared in influential think tanks geared toward putting a public smiley face on sociopathic warmongering agendas.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995026256214179840
> 3. Despite one of its criteria for trustworthy sources being whether or not they are transparent about their funding, the specifics of NewsGuard’s financing is kept secret.
> 
> 4. NewsGuard is also planning to get its news-ranking system integrated into social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter, pursuing a partnership which will make pro-establishment media consumption a part of your experience at those sites regardless of whether or not you download a NewsGuard app or plugin.
> 
> 5. NewsGuard markets itself to state governments in order to get its plugin installed in all of that state’s public schools and libraries to keep internet users from consuming unauthorized narratives. It has already succeeded in accomplishing this in the state of Hawaii, with all of its library branches now running the NewsGuard plugin.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081271640925921280
> We may be absolutely certain that NewsGuard will continue giving a positive, trustworthy ranking to the New York Times no matter how many spectacular flubs it makes in its coverage of the establishment Russia narrative, because the agenda to popularize anti-Russia narratives lines up perfectly with the neoconservative, government agency-serving agendas of the powers behind NewsGuard. Any attempt to advance the hegemony of the US-centralized power establishment will be rewarded by its lackeys, and any skepticism of it will be punished.
> 
> Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Ruling power’s desire to regulate people’s access to information is so desperate that it has become as clumsy and ham-fisted as a teenager pawing at his date in the back seat of a car, and it feels about as enjoyable. They’re barely even concealing their desire to control our minds anymore, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to wake everyone up to their manipulations. We need to use every inch of our ability to communicate with each other before it gets shut down for good.


Don't skip this article. Spread it. 

There's another article that has traced all the links The Newguard platform has to neocons and establishment talking heads. 

https://www.mintpressnews.com/newsg...lans-to-wage-war-on-independent-media/253687/

From this article: 



> MintPress was informed that it was under review by an organization called Newsguard Technologies, which described itself to MintPress as simply a “news rating agency” and asked Muhawesh to comment on a series of allegations, several of which were blatantly untrue. *However, further examination of this organization reveals that it is funded by and deeply connected to the U.S. government, neo-conservatives, and powerful monied interests, all of whom have been working overtime since the 2016 election to silence dissent to American forever-wars and corporate-led oligarchy.*





> Newsguard separates sites it deems worthy and sites it considers unreliable by using a color-coded rating — green, yellow, or red — and more detailed “nutrition labels” regarding a site’s credibility or lack thereof. Rankings are created by Newsguard’s team of “trained analysts.” *The color-coding system may remind some readers of the color-coded terror threat-level warning system that was created after 9/11, making it worth noting that Tom Ridge, the former secretary of Homeland Security who oversaw the implementation of that system under George W. Bush, is on Newsguard’s advisory board.*





> As Newsguard releases a new rating of a site, that rating automatically spreads to all computers that have installed its news ranking browser plug-in. That plug-in is currently available for free for the most commonly used internet browsers. NewsGuard directly markets the browser plug-in to libraries, schools and internet users in general.





> However, some of the rankings Newsguard itself has publicized show that it is manifestly uninterested in fighting “misinformation.” *How else to explain the fact that the Washington Post and CNN both received high scores even though both have written stories or made statements that later proved to be entirely false? For example, CNN falsely claimed in 2016 that it was illegal for Americans to read WikiLeaks releases and illegally colluded with the DNC to craft presidential debate questions.*





> *The Washington Post, whose $600 million conflict of interest with the CIA goes unnoted by Newsguard, has also published false stories since the 2016 election, including one article that falsely claimed that “Russian hackers” had tapped into Vermont’s electrical grid. It was later found that the grid itself was never breached and the “hack” was only an isolated laptop with a minor malware problem. Yet, such acts of journalistic malpractice are apparently of little concern to Newsguard when those committing such acts are big-name corporate media outlets.*





> Newsguard is the latest venture to result from the partnership between Steven Brill and Louis Gordon Crovitz, who currently serve as co-CEOs of the group. Brill is a long-time journalist — published in TIME and The New Yorker, among others — who most recently founded the Yale Journalism Initiative, which aims to encourage Yale students who “aspire to contribute to democracy in the United States and around the world” to become journalists at top U.S. and international media organizations. He first teamed up with Crovitz in 2009 to create Journalism Online, which sought to make the online presence of top American newspapers and other publishers profitable, and was also the CEO of the company that partnered up with the TSA to offer “registered” travelers the ability to move more quickly through airport security — for a price, of course.





> Crovitz — his partner in founding Journalism Online, then Press+, and now Newsguard — is the last person one would expect to find promoting any legitimate effort to “restore trust and accountability” in journalism. In the early 1980s. Crovitz held a number of positions at Dow Jones and at the Wall Street Journal, eventually becoming executive vice president of the former and the publisher of the latter before both were sold to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp in 2007. He is also a board member of Business Insider, which has received over $30 million from Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos in recent years.





> Crovitz proudly notes in his bio, available on Newsguard’s website, that he has been an “editor or contributor to books published by the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation.” Though many MintPress readers are likely familiar with these two institutions, for those who are not, it is worth pointing out that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is one of the most influential neoconservative think tanks in the country and its “scholars,” directors and fellows have included neoconservative figures like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton and Frederick Kagan.





> AEI was instrumental in promoting the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq and has since advocated for militaristic solutions to U.S. foreign policy objectives and the expansion of the U.S.’ military empire as well as the “War on Terror.” During the Bush years, AEI was also closely associated with the now defunct and controversial neoconservative organization known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which presciently called, four years before 9/11, for a “new Pearl Harbor” as needed to rally support behind American military adventurism.





>





> *Stengel described his past position at the State Department as “chief propagandist” and also stated that he is “not against propaganda. Every country does it and they have to do it to their own population and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.”*


Find out about more in the article. 

Good luck Americans. We're about to enter a new age of online propaganda. This was a process the neocons started way back in 2002 under Bush. 16 years later, they've made it possible.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> A very important new development with regards to flooding the internet with more Neo-con propaganda, but I doubt anyone's paying attention *sigh*
> 
> I guess it's enough to simply call yourself a "free" country, even if the actual level of freedom is debateable.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't skip this article. Spread it.
> 
> There's another article that has traced all the links The Newguard platform has to neocons and establishment talking heads.
> 
> https://www.mintpressnews.com/newsg...lans-to-wage-war-on-independent-media/253687/
> 
> From this article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find out about more in the article.
> 
> Good luck Americans. We're about to enter a new age of online propaganda. This was a process the neocons started way back in 2002 under Bush. 16 years later, they've made it possible.


Back in the old days of religious small towns, the religious leader(s) of the town would control the flow of information. It's a lot easier to indoctrinate people when the only information they have access to is the information controlled by the people doing the indoctrinating. That same concept applies to all modern narratives, just on a bigger scale.

Controlling the narrative became more difficult as the world started getting bigger and more connected. It was completely blown out of the water with the rise of the internet. Now the rulers of the world are trying to take back that narrative. Certain someones around here act like the loss of net neutrality is no big deal. These are people incapable of seeing the bigger picture. It's only a part of the story. It's part of a larger concerted effort to take down anyone who dares to go against the official narrative. These are people who want to lie with impunity and have people believe it without question. The only thing they really fear is the masses rising up against them. That's why they work so hard to control the narrative. They completely lost that control when Trump got elected over their chosen one. And they will be doing everything within their power to take that control back, by any means necessary.

This is going to be a lot bigger deal than most people realize.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Yup. This isn't about Trump at all. 

Putting my conspiracy theory hat on for a bit, I think that the entire Russian narrative is a test run to see how far they can take the propaganda.

The end game isn't to unseat Trump. Trump is already toeing the line. He's no longer a threat. He was percieved as one and then duly neutralized ... Very easily too and without a fight at all. 

The threat is the free flow of information on the internet.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Putting my conspiracy theory hat on for a bit, I think that the entire Russian narrative is a test run to see how far they can take the propaganda.


There's more to it than just that but yeah that's part of it. TBF, this is not the first fact free big lie that the propaganda machine has gotten people to believe.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

LOL at still calling the Trump Russia collusion propaganda with the mountains of evidence showing it, especially after the whole Manaford leak. It just goes to show no matter how much evidence there is, you guys will deny it. Just admit you were wrong.


----------



## Hurricanes18

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at still calling the Trump Russia collusion propaganda with the mountains of evidence showing it, especially after the whole Manaford leak. It just goes to show no matter how much evidence there is, you guys will deny it. Just admit you were wrong.


I think the evidence that Trump and Russia colluded is pretty clear. ITs not even voter fraud, but Election Fraud. ITs not Russia. Its that the DNC Party, and the GOP. Seem complicit in commiting these frauds. I don't see any propaganda here. The whole Manafort thing is quite clear. DTJ meeting Russian Diplomats in Trump Tower in 2016. Russia have just used Trump as a Pawn, in a much larger game.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

DeBlasio and his administration are trying to destroy my city:

- *Plans to guarantee comprehensive healthcare to all residents regardless of documentation status.* 
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-Health-Care-Guarantee-Mayor-de-Blasio-504046171.html

- *Plans to force all employers with 5 or more employees to provide 2 weeks paid vacation.*
https://abc7ny.com/politics/mayor-announces-plan-for-2-weeks-pto-for-workers-in-nyc/5039857/


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

@Draykorinee @BRITLAND @CJ @Santa With Muscles


https://rsf.org/en/united-kingdom?f...zZ07IN1-BTihJeGHqTouNbs2qlw0NBMjvmy2YqExDEj10



> A continued heavy-handed approach towards the press (often in the name of national security) has resulted in the UK keeping its status as one of the worst-ranked Western European countries in the World Press Freedom Index. The government began to implement the Investigatory Powers Act—the most extreme surveillance legislation in UK history—with insufficient protection mechanisms for whistleblowers, journalists, and their sources. Home Secretary Amber Rudd repeatedly threatened to restrict encryption tools such as WhatsApp and announced plans to criminalise the repeated viewing of extremist content. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 remained on the books, presenting cause for concern since the law’s punitive cost-shifting provision could hold publishers liable for the costs of all claims made against them, regardless of merit.
> 
> Both the Conservative and Labour parties restricted journalists' access to campaign events ahead of the June 2017 general election, and BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg received extensive online abuse and threats, resulting in her being assigned bodyguards to cover the Labour Party conference.
> 
> Offshore law firm Appleby sued the BBC and The Guardian for breach of confidence over the Paradise Papers source materials, making them the only two media outlets out of 96 in 67 countries to have analysed the Paradise Papers and taken to court.


A worrying trend indeed.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


>


I swear if Starbucks ever installs needle disposal boxes we have officially jumped the shark.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Can't believe I clicked play on a Sargon video, at least put a disclaimer in first if you're going to link that dickhead.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Sargon's videos are always high quality.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I swear if Starbucks ever installs needle disposal boxes we have officially jumped the shark.


At this point I have no recourse but to call this opinion completely fuctarded.

You guys make mountains of fucking retarded bullshit that doesn't impact you, won't impact you, won't make any difference to your life, but just because everyone in your political bubble is throwing fits over it, you feel like you have to as well.

Think about it for a second. There are diabetic people in the world. 

Plus what kind of a person thinks that it's *worse* if druggies have a place to dump their needles than not. It's not like all our laws around drugs have put a dent in drug use. I would much rather have druggie needles being dumped in a safe box than thrown on the street. 

The one time a capitalist decides to do something that's socially responsible, it's not good either. Do you guys even think for yourselves? fpalm


----------



## Rugrat

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Interesting video from Fox. This isn’t liberal bashing in the video either. If it’s too long skip to 7:26


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Its from the Sun, but it would surprise me if true
http://archive.is/OZks8


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sol Ratti said:


> Interesting video from Fox. This isn’t liberal bashing in the video either. If it’s too long skip to 7:26


Tucker Carlson is a clown. Don't see how anyone takes him seriously. How is it a bad thing women are making more money than men in some cases? And how is it women's fault a lot of the male manufacturing jobs are going overseas or being automated? 

Tucker is basically crying because in some cases women are the head of household making the money when some of the men don't have jobs because they were laid off.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Tucker Carlson actually does manage to get it right a lot, unfortunately its far less often than he gets it wrong.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Tucker Carlson actually does manage to get it right a lot, unfortunately its far less often than he gets it wrong.


What does he ever get right? He wasn't right in this case. He is wrong every time he defends Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Tucker Carlson is a clown. Don't see how anyone takes him seriously. How is it a bad thing women are making more money than men in some cases? And how is it women's fault a lot of the male manufacturing jobs are going overseas or being automated?
> 
> Tucker is basically crying because in some cases women are the head of household making the money when some of the men don't have jobs because they were laid off.


I'm not listening to Carlson's video, but I can tell you that the general idea behind the "women are earning more" argument is to simply debunk the radical 77 cent feminist myth that has become too pervasive in the West. It's just wrong. 

The real issue for me however isn't that men and women should be earning equal or not. The issue for me personally is that we've devolved our capitalist societies to a point where in the majority of households _both _women and men _have_ to work in order to make ends meet and that in the majority of the west people cannot live on a single income. The compulsion to grow the labor market has shrunk wages for everyone. And in that push, feminists have created a society that's more dependent on capitalism than capitalists being dependent on labor. It's an unintended consequence. 

Getting women into jobs (while a good idea in principle) has allowed capitalists to pay everyone less because now there are two people working to pay for everything instead of just one in the past.


----------



## Rugrat

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The real issue for me however isn't that men and women should be earning equal or not. The issue for me personally is that we've devolved our capitalist societies to a point where in the majority of households _both _women and men _have_ to work in order to make ends meet and that in the majority of the west people cannot live on a single income. The compulsion to grow the labor market has shrunk wages for everyone. And in that push, feminists have created a society that's more dependent on capitalism than capitalists being dependent on labor. It's an unintended consequence.


I can't speak for the US really as I don't know the cost of living, but in the UK, the minimum wage is £7.70 which works out at around £1340 a month if 40 hours are worked which is a wage a single person can feasibly live off.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sol Ratti said:


> I can't speak for the US really as I don't know the cost of living, but in the UK, the minimum wage is £7.70 which works out at around £1340 a month if 40 hours are worked which is a wage a single person can feasibly live off.


There's no reason to bring up a single person when I'm obviously talking about families when I say both people need to work. 

Can a family of say 3-4 live off of 7.70? Because of course when men and women are both working in a family then I'm not talking about a single person. 

Almost all of the west's problems around low birth-rates, late marriages, people not even marrying, people refusing to divorce but not having babies etc can be traced to low wages.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Almost all of the west's problems around low birth-rates, late marriages, people not even marrying, people refusing to divorce but not having babies etc can be traced to low wages.


Agreed.


----------



## Rugrat

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> There's no reason to bring up a single person when I'm obviously talking about families when I say both people need to work.
> 
> Can a family of say 3-4 live off of 7.70? Because of course when men and women are both working in a family then I'm not talking about a single person.
> 
> Almost all of the west's problems around low birth-rates, late marriages, people not even marrying, people refusing to divorce but not having babies etc can be traced to low wages.


Why shouldn't adults work if they are able to? I bring up the single person, because one can support themselves doing work considered the least valuable.

Some jobs are much easier, less risk, lower requirements - so get lower financial reward than other jobs, a benefit of such being only one partner needs to work. I guess if a family cannot afford a child, then as you put it the solution is to marry _later_. I'm not sure how that's a problem though.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sol Ratti said:


> Why shouldn't adults work if they are able to? I bring up the single person, because one can support themselves doing work considered the least valuable.
> 
> Some jobs are much easier, less risk, lower requirements - so get lower financial reward than other jobs, a benefit of such being only one partner needs to work. I guess if a family cannot afford a child, then as you put it the solution is to marry _later_. I'm not sure how that's a problem though.


Thanks for pointing out that capitalism creates a society based around compromise and sacrifice.


----------



## Rugrat

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Thanks for pointing out that capitalism creates a society based around compromise and sacrifice.


Swap sacrifice for opportunity and you're on a winner


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sol Ratti said:


> Swap sacrifice for opportunity and you're on a winner


Yeah. Good is bad. Bad is good. The sun is the moon and fire is wet.


----------



## Rugrat

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yeah. Good is bad. Bad is good. The sun is the moon and fire is wet.


Fire is wet. If you're going to be so arrogant, at least be right.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

http://www.mybudget360.com/two-inco...ed-couples-working-percent-income-to-keep-up/



> *The Two Income Trap has only gotten worse: America has become a dual-income nation since one income isn’t enough to maintain a household.
> *
> America has become a nation where households depend on multiple streams of income just to get by. Many people think that having two incomes is a luxury when in most cases, you need two incomes just to get by and keep up with the rising cost of living. This is reflected in the two income trap. Take for example a couple that works and makes the median household income of $52,000. In many cases if the couple has a child, daycare costs are needed and these can run exceptionally high. Healthcare costs are also incredibly high and have grown unbelievably fast over the last two decades. This recent recession could have been called a Mancession since most of the jobs lost went to men. America is a nation of dual-income households because people are too broke to get by on one income. The current state of the economy hasn’t helped much in supporting economic growth for working families.
> 
> The two income trap
> 
> Back in 1965 47% of families had both spouses working. That figure is now up to 66% and it is extremely rare to find a household where only the husband works. You also find it more common today that a household will have only the wife working.
> 
> Women entering the workforce has shifted how people deal with daily life. But the thought of economic freedom by having an additional income in the household has been largely swept away by inflation. Take a look at this chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that this would be providing American families more financial freedom but instead it is merely keeping people from being out on the streets. The homeownership rate is now down to generational lows. Why? Because home prices are inflated thanks to banking policies and investors that have gutted the market and have created a shortage of housing for working families. So what is left is higher rents and higher home prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1950 typical healthcare costs ran about $1,000 per year adjusting for inflation. Today they run over $10,000 per year and this isn’t factoring a serious illness or injury. This is merely to have routine insurance coverage for your family.
> 
> More money does not mean more flexibility if inflation is eating away the cost of living. With two working people, you have more money spent on childcare, food, and it is very likely that two cars are necessary with people commuting to separate jobs. Cars eat up a lot of money in payments, gas, and maintenance. In the end, you have a large amount of unexpected expenses that eat away at that additional paycheck.
> 
> This is the trap. You have two incomes so why are people struggling more today than that single income from the 1950s and 1960s? In short the answer is inflation and the destruction of our manufacturing base. There is a race to the bottom in this low wage economy. The middle class is now a minority and the two income trap is even getting harder to dig out of. This is why people are so angry during this election because there really isn’t a champion for the middle class.
> 
> People do have options to make things better and being able to budget is absolutely critical. Many couples also buy homes that are beyond their means just to keep up with the Joneses. And you absolutely need to plan for retirement. Don’t be like many that are using the “work until you die” model of retirement. The two income trap may make things hard but don’t compound your financial problems with inadequate planning.


I dunno, but the diminishing returns from capitalism don't seem to be adding up to this myth of "opportunity". It seems to be showing fewer opportunities, more sacrifice, lower standards of living, fewer people with homes, fewer people in marriages, fewer people with children etc, more debt etc etc. 

Where is the "opportunity"? Seems like a word people have latched on to without thinking about it.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I can support a family of 5 on a single income, however, were it not for our child tax benefit and splitting rent with my brother in law, I probably wouldn't make it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> I can support a family of 5 on a single income, however, were it not for our child tax benefit and splitting rent with my brother in law, I probably wouldn't make it.


If you are splinting rent with your brother you are not supporting your family on a single income.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you are splinting rent with your brother you are not supporting your family on a single income.


We adjust to the situation. We moved in to help him out and cut our own rent. If he left, we'd probably have to move, I'd still make it happen though one way or another.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> We adjust to the situation. We moved in to help him out and cut our own rent. If he left,* we'd probably have to move,* I'd still make it happen though one way or another.


Still only validates my point about sacrifice and compromise. :Shrug


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Still only validates my point about sacrifice and compromise. :Shrug


I think it's combination of all three, opportunity/compromise/sacrifice. Life is generally a lot more grey than stark black and white.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> I think it's combination of all three, opportunity/compromise/sacrifice. Life is generally a lot more grey than stark black and white.


Pretty sure you are just making reapers point.

When there is fewer opportunities, you have to make more compromises and sacrifices. Like you gave in your example.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Pretty sure you are just making reapers point.
> 
> When there is fewer opportunities, you have to make more compromises and sacrifices. Like you gave in your example.


But splitting the rent also allows us to allocate funds elsewhere. I'm not taking a side just trying to relate it to my current situation. Both seem to have merit and a lot of it is how you look at it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> I think it's combination of all three, opportunity/compromise/sacrifice. Life is generally a lot more grey than stark black and white.


Wait. The opportunities were created by creating a mini commune tho :troll


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Wait. The opportunities were created by creating a mini commune tho :troll


Isn't that what a family is? Three parties a freeloaders. :hmmm


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> At this point I have no recourse but to call this opinion completely fuctarded.
> 
> You guys make mountains of fucking retarded bullshit that doesn't impact you, won't impact you, won't make any difference to your life, but just because everyone in your political bubble is throwing fits over it, you feel like you have to as well.
> 
> Think about it for a second. There are diabetic people in the world.
> 
> *Plus what kind of a person thinks that it's *worse* if druggies have a place to dump their needles than not.* It's not like all our laws around drugs have put a dent in drug use. I would much rather have druggie needles being dumped in a safe box than thrown on the street.
> 
> The one time a capitalist decides to do something that's socially responsible, it's not good either. Do you guys even think for yourselves? fpalm


Are you fucking kidding me??? What kind of person thinks it's even okay for them to do this in the first place?

HEROIN ADDICTS are shooting up in Starbucks and yet you're more concerned with having somwhere to dispose the needles???

You do realize that this the result of the open bathroom policy right? They have alerted the druggies that they have a safe place to shoot up and so they are swarming in. Who TF wants to go to Starbucks and be around that shit. Who TF wants THEIR KIDS to be around that shit. 

You want the 'socially responsible' solution? Fuck disposal boxes, keep these bums the fuck out of there.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Are you fucking kidding me??? What kind of person thinks it's even okay for them to do this in the first place?
> 
> *HEROIN ADDICTS are shooting up in Starbucks and yet you're more concerned with having somwhere to dispose the needles???*
> 
> You do realize that this the result of the open bathroom policy right? They have alerted the druggies that they have a safe place to shoot up and so they are swarming in. Who TF wants to go to Starbucks and be around that shit. Who TF wants THEIR KIDS to be around that shit.
> 
> You want the 'socially responsible' solution? Fuck disposal boxes, keep these bums the fuck out of there.


YES because they will be doing it anyways, be it in the bathroom or outside on the street. So why shouldn't be there a place they can safely dispose of the needles

How is it responsible to let them just shoot up on the streets and just toss the needles on the ground where anyone can pick them up. its way better to have a place to dispose of them.

its also funny how you blow these few incidents way out of proportion. This does not happen at the majority of Starbucks. But you just cherry pick at the few it has happened at.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> YES because they will be doing it anyways, be it in the bathroom or outside on the street. So why shouldn't be there a place they can safely dispose of the needles
> 
> How is it responsible to let them just shoot up on the streets and just toss the needles on the ground where anyone can pick them up. its way better to have a place to dispose of them.
> 
> its also funny how you blow these few incidents way out of proportion. This does not happen at the majority of Starbucks. But you just cherry pick at the few it has happened at.


No they wouldn't be doing it anyways. They're targeting Starbucks because they opened up their restrooms to the non-paying public. A heroin addict isn't gonna enter some fine establishment and try to shoot up because those bathrooms are for paying customers only and they would be stopped at the door.

The idea is to keep them out not meet them halfway. What kind of shitshow of a city sees this happening and thinks the solution to the problem is more disposal boxes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> No they wouldn't be doing it anyways. They're targeting Starbucks because they opened up their restrooms to the non-paying public. A heroin addict isn't gonna enter some fine establishment and try to shoot up because those bathrooms are for paying customers only and they would be stopped at the door.
> 
> The idea is to keep them out not meet them halfway. What kind of shitshow of a city sees this happening and thinks the solution to the problem is more disposal boxes.


They are doing it anyways LOL its a joke you claim they are not. I can't even take you seriously. 

And a responsible city is a city who puts in disposable boxes


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are doing it anyways LOL its a joke you claim they are not. I can't even take you seriously.
> 
> And a responsible city is a city who puts in disposable boxes


It's a very simple solution actually. 

- Bathrooms for paying customers only.
- No drugs allowed.

If someone walked into my store and shot up in my bathroom I would call the police, not ask for a disposal box.

What's the issue does this make too much sense for you or something? Am I misguided? Should we just put up with it? 

What is YOUR solution?


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are doing it anyways LOL its a joke you claim they are not. I can't even take you seriously.
> 
> And a responsible city is a city who puts in disposable boxes


Just so Im clear here...if you owned a business, you would be ok with people using your bathroom to shoot heroin??


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Just so Im clear here...if you owned a business, you would be ok with people using your bathroom to shoot heroin??


He's not going to answer this question.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Just so Im clear here...if you owned a business, you would be ok with people using your bathroom to shoot heroin??


No, I wouldn't but that is not what we are talking about here.

Starbucks is putting in disposable boxes because people are shooting up in their bathrooms so they are not just throwing them on the floor

And not everyone who is using the bathrooms are shooting up. Ist a very small amount of people.




Berzerker's Beard said:


> It's a very simple solution actually.
> 
> - Bathrooms for paying customers only.
> - No drugs allowed.
> 
> If someone walked into my store and shot up in my bathroom I would call the police, not ask for a disposal box.
> 
> What's the issue does this make too much sense for you or something? Am I misguided? Should we just put up with it?
> 
> What is YOUR solution?


Their policy is that anyone from the outside can use the bathroom. And some of them happen to use needles, so their solution was to put up disposable boxes. that is a good solution to the problem for their bathroom policy. It's way better than just letting them throw the needles on the floor. 

Not sure what is so difficult to understand about this. 

They don't have to change their bathroom policy. Just say if you are caught shooting up the police will be called.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *No, I wouldn't but that is not what we are talking about here.*
> 
> Starbucks is putting in disposable boxes because people are shooting up in their bathrooms so they are not just throwing them on the floor
> 
> And not everyone who is using the bathrooms are shooting up. Ist a very small amount of people.


BM isn't okay with heroin addicts shooting up in his store, but he IS okay with them shooting up in Starbucks. 

Way to go.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> BM isn't okay with heroin addicts shooting up in his store, but he IS okay with them shooting up in Starbucks.
> 
> Way to go.


Quote me where I said its ok for them to shoot up in Starbucks?

Stop trolling because you don't like Starbucks is responsible for putting in disable boxes because people are shooting up


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> No, I wouldn't but that is not what we are talking about here.
> 
> Starbucks is putting in disposable boxes because people are shooting up in their bathrooms so they are not just throwing them on the floor
> 
> And not everyone who is using the bathrooms are shooting up. Ist a very small amount of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their policy is that anyone from the outside can use the bathroom. And some of them happen to use needles, so their solution was to put up disposable boxes. that is a good solution to the problem for their bathroom policy. It's way better than just letting them throw the needles on the floor.
> 
> Not sure what is so difficult to understand about this.
> 
> They don't have to change their bathroom policy. Just say if you are caught shooting up the police will be called.


Trust me when I say I get the disposable box thing, much better than having someone stick themselves with a dirty needle. All Im saying is its nuts to do ANYTHING to promote it or advocate for it. I dont care if theyre going to do it anyways, do it anyways, just not in my store. The paying customers dont want to see dirty needle boxes in the bathroom. I dont care how little its happening, the fact its happening at all is nuts.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Quote me where I said its ok for them to shoot up in Starbucks?
> 
> Stop trolling because you don't like Starbucks is responsible for putting in disable boxes because people are shooting up


You said you would not allow addicts to shoot heroin in your store, right?

Okay so pretend you own a Starbucks in the part of Seattle where this is happening. Enlighten us, what would be your plan to keep heroin users out? You said you wouldn't change the bathroom policy right? 

What would you do?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> You said you would not allow addicts to shoot heroin in your store, right?
> 
> Okay so you pretend you own a Starbucks in the part of Seattle where this is happening. Enlighten us, what would be your plan to keep heroin users out? You said you wouldn't change the bathroom policy right?
> 
> What would you do?


If you catch someone shooting up, you call the cops.

You act like this is a trick question.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you catch someone shooting up, you call the cops.
> 
> You act like this is a trick question.


So what is the point of installing disposal boxes then?

"Hey don't shoot up heroin in my store or I'll call the cops, but if you do please kindly use this disposal box?"

That is your solution to the problem? :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> So what is the point of installing disposal boxes then?
> 
> "Hey don't shoot up heroin in my store or I'll call the cops, but if you do please kindly use this disposal box?"
> 
> That is your solution to the problem? :lol


So for the people you don't see shooting up, you would rather them just throw the needles on the floor

gotcha


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I would rather no one shoot up in my store...and for there not to be a policy that encourages those types of people to come into my business.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> I would rather no one shoot up in my store...and for there not to be a policy that encourages those types of people to come into my business.


They are going to shoot up anyways, so why not give a safe solution for when they do. Basically, you are using the illogical premise if you hand out condoms to HS kids it will encourage them to have sex


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So for the people you don't see shooting up, you would rather them just throw the needles on the floor
> 
> gotcha


I would rather not see them in my store to begin with. That should be any rational person's mode of thought. Only an irrational person would see the rising epidemic of heroin users in their store and seek out disposal boxes as a practical solution or a practical means to an end.

If I ever walked into a store that needed needle disposable boxes to combat the rampant amount of heroin being used in the bathrooms I would walk right the fuck out and I would never come back


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are going to shoot up anyways, so why not give a safe solution for when they do. Basically, you are using the illogical premise if you hand out condoms to HS kids it will encourage them to have sex


No it would be like allowing high schoolers to have sex at my business...dont want that either. Just because its going to happen, doesnt mean I want it to happen at my business. 

If hospitals want to do this thats one thing, but a business owner should not have to worry about a heroin addict coming into his business with the sole intent on using heroin. 

I dont think I have a real big problem with the boxes, like I said I understand its purpose, I think my issue is the "anyone can use the bathroom" and that creating the problem to begin with. 

If its going to happen anyway, should I do nothing to discourage it??


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> No it would be like allowing high schoolers to have sex at my business...dont want that either. Just because its going to happen, doesnt mean I want it to happen at my business.
> 
> If hospitals want to do this thats one thing, but a business owner should not have to worry about a heroin addict coming into his business with the sole intent on using heroin.
> 
> I dont think I have a real big problem with the boxes, like I said I understand its purpose, I think my issue is the "anyone can use the bathroom" and that creating the problem to begin with.
> 
> If its going to happen anyway, should I do nothing to discourage it??


You keep missing the point. It is happening anyway, so why not give a safe solution to a problem. You act like if they don't put up those boxes no one is going to shoot up. The reason for the boxes is because people are shooting up.

If its going to happen anyways, give a safe solution. Not putting up the boxes is not discouraging it. Your whole line of thinking is seriously flawed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I would rather not see them in my store to begin with. That should be any rational person's mode of thought. Only an irrational person would see the rising epidemic of heroin users in their store and seek out disposal boxes as a practical solution or a practical means to an end.
> 
> If I ever walked into a store that needed needle disposable boxes to combat the rampant amount of heroin being used in the bathrooms I would walk right the fuck out and I would never come back


Oh, so its all about your feelings and you would rather be oblivious to the fact people are shooting up in that store. Because either way people are shooting up. Just one has a safe solution and the other does. And you would rather go into the one that does not have a safe solution and you call others illogical lol

Your whole line of thinking is illogical.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You keep missing the point. It is happening anyway, so why not give a safe solution to a problem. You act like if they don't put up those boxes no one is going to shoot up. The reason for the boxes is because people are shooting up.
> 
> If its going to happen anyways, give a safe solution. Not putting up the boxes is not discouraging it. Your whole line of thinking is seriously flawed.


So not wanting drug users in my place is a flawed way of thinking?? I cant even take you seriously when you say things like that.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The idea is to keep them out not meet them halfway. What kind of shitshow of a city sees this happening and thinks the solution to the problem is more disposal boxes.


San Francisco


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I would rather not see them in my store to begin with. That should be any rational person's mode of thought. Only an irrational person would see the rising epidemic of heroin users in their store and seek out disposal boxes as a practical solution or a practical means to an end.
> 
> If I ever walked into a store that needed needle disposable boxes to combat the rampant amount of heroin being used in the bathrooms I would walk right the fuck out and I would never come back


If I know drug users are using a store's bathroom to shoot up, I am not going in that place whether they have disposal boxes or not.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> If I know drug users are using a store's bathroom to shoot up, I am not going in that place whether they have disposal boxes or not.





blaird said:


> So not wanting drug users in my place is a flawed way of thinking?? I cant even take you seriously when you say things like that.


They are in your place anyways you would just rather not know its happening. That is what you are saying.

This is your logic.

Store A people are shooting up in the bathrooms but they don't have disposable boxes for the needles.

Store B people are shooting up in the bathrooms and they have disposable boxes for the needles.

Your logic is you would rather go in store A because you are oblivious to the people shooting up because you don't see the boxes in the bathroom


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are in your place anyways you would just rather not know who they are. That is what you are saying.


Jesus, let me rephrase...I dont want people using drugs in my business, I dont want people coming into my business with the only intent of using drugs. I dont want people to come in, buy something, then use my bathroom to do drugs. 

I said it before, I GET THE BOXES!! I understand why they are there. My problem is more so with the bathroom policy. As a business, if you see an increase in drug use in your stores (no matter how few) bc of one of your policies, should you not do something to stop that?


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are in your place anyways you would just rather not know its happening. That is what you are saying.
> 
> This is your logic.
> 
> Store A people are shooting up in the bathrooms but they don't have disposable boxes for the needles.
> 
> Store B people are shooting up in the bathrooms and they have disposable boxes for the needles.
> 
> Your logic is you would rather go in store A because you are oblivious to the people shooting up because you don't see the boxes in the bathroom


You actually quoted my post saying if someone is using drugs in a store I wouldnt go there regardless of boxes and you get that? This is 100% why I question your reading comprehension.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Jesus, let me rephrase...I dont want people using drugs in my business, I dont want people coming into my business with the only intent of using drugs. I dont want people to come in, buy something, then use my bathroom to do drugs.
> 
> I said it before, I GET THE BOXES!! I understand why they are there. My problem is more so with the bathroom policy. As a business, if you see an increase in drug use in your stores (no matter how few) bc of one of your policies, should you not do something to stop that?


it does not matter what you want, its happening anyway. So its better to put the boxes in to make it safer.

We are just going in circles now, I am done.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> it does not matter what you want, its happening anyway. So its better to put the boxes in to make it safer.
> 
> We are just going in circles now, I am done.


Wow, it doesnt matter if I want or dont want people to use drugs in my business, they are going to do it anyway...you and I run businesses way differently bc I could stop it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Wow, it doesnt matter if I want or dont want people to use drugs in my business, they are going to do it anyway...you and I run businesses way differently bc I could stop it.


No you couldn't stop it lol Just like you can't stop young people from having sex. If you really think you could stop everyone doing drugs in your store, you are delusional. 

good luck in your fantasy land.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> No you couldn't stop it lol Just like you can't stop young people from having sex. If you really think you could stop everyone doing drugs in your store, you are delusional.
> 
> good luck in your fantasy land.


Lock the bathroom doors and put an out of order sign on them...now where are they going to do it? Out front in front of customers?? Boop call the cops, may take a few days but I could stop it in my store.

How do other stores stop them from using drugs?

And what is your thing with young people and sex?? I absolutely could stop young people or middle aged or old people from having sex in my store. Are you telling me you couldnt? What they do away from my store is not my business...is this really the best analogy/comparison you could come up with? One that has nothing to do with what is being discussed?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Lock the bathroom doors and put an out of order sign on them...now where are they going to do it? Out front in front of customers?? Boop call the cops, may take a few days but I could stop it in my store.
> 
> How do other stores stop them from using drugs?
> 
> And what is your thing with young people and sex?? I absolutely could stop young people or middle aged or old people from having sex in my store. Are you telling me you couldnt? What they do away from my store is not my business...is this really the best analogy/comparison you could come up with? One that has nothing to do with what is being discussed?


Other stores don't stop them from doing drugs. That is what you don't understand. I worked retail in college, and we would sometimes find needles in the fitting rooms.

We are not talking about stopping people from having sex in your store. It was an analogy because people claim that giving out condoms leads HS kids to have sex which it doesn't. Just like you are trying to claim putting boxes in the bathroom is getting people to shoot up in your bathrooms. They are shooting up anyways the box is not getting it to happen. 

. And sorry but you couldn't even stop people from having sex in your bathrooms. It's cute you think you could stop that. You are just living in fantasy land. 

I am really done with this since you keep going in circles and talking about questions I already answered


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *Other stores don't stop them from doing drugs*. That is what you don't understand. I worked retail in college, and we would sometimes find needles in the fitting rooms.
> 
> We are not talking about stopping people from having sex in your store. It was an analogy because people claim that giving out condoms leads HS kids to have sex which it doesn't. Just like you are trying to claim putting boxes in the bathroom is getting people to shoot up in your bathrooms. They are shooting up anyways the box is not getting it to happen.
> 
> . And sorry but you couldn't even stop people from having sex in your bathrooms. It's cute you think you could stop that. You are just living in fantasy land.
> 
> I am really done with this since you keep going in circles and talking about questions I already answered


Ive worked retail as well..never found a needle, we probably just live in different areas. I also never had people trying to have sex in my store either. 

So youre saying all Starbucks have people using drugs in them??

You seem to be stuck on me and this box thing when I have said repeatedly I am ok with the boxes, just that people dont like to see them and Im prob right on that. My issue is with the bathroom policy as stated numerous times that you bypass bc you are so stuck on these boxes for some reason.

And yes I absolutely can stop drug users from using drugs in my store. I am dying laughing at you not being able to handle crime in your store. Its not fantasy, if I dont want people using drugs in my bathroom, I find a way to keep them out my bathroom.

I am only worried about whats happening in my store, not outside, thats why your young couple sex thing is an awful analogy and youre the only one that has brought it up and the condom thing, its an awful analogy.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> it does not matter what you want, its happening anyway. So its better to put the boxes in to make it safer.
> 
> We are just going in circles now, I am done.


:lol What outrageous logic. If someone wants to run clean bathrooms in their business, it absolutely matters what they want, its their bathroom. Also,what kind of message does that send to potential customers if they walk into a bathroom and sees people do drugs? They're not going to want to shop there. But for some reason, its more important to "help" drug users, even if it means harming innocent people. Quite ridiculous


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The problem will solve itself when the businesses close down.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> The problem will solve itself when the businesses close down.


Or starts the next pandemic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> :lol What outrageous logic. If someone wants to run clean bathrooms in their business, it absolutely matters what they want, its their bathroom. Also,what kind of message does that send to potential customers if they walk into a bathroom and sees people do drugs? They're not going to want to shop there. But for some reason, its more important to "help" drug users, even if it means harming innocent people. Quite ridiculous


You are delusional if you think, just because you don't want someone doing drugs in your bathroom that means people will magically stop doing drugs in your bathroom.

you need to live in reality

If those boxes are not in the bathroom, people will just find the used needles on the floor, instead of just seeing the boxes on the walls.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I will say it would be tough to keep all drug users out of something big like a Wal Mart or Dicks or Home Depot or something that has 10s of thousands of sq feet, but it would be no problem to keep it out of a tiny place like a Starbucks where the only room not visible from the register IS the bathroom. 

If you can keep people out your bathroom, which is easy to do, then yes you can keep drug users out of your Starbucks...wonder if BM will agree with this, my guess is no.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> I will say it would be tough to keep all drug users out of something big like a Wal Mart or Dicks or Home Depot or something that has 10s of thousands of sq feet, but it would be no problem to keep it out of a tiny place like a *Starbucks where the only room not visible from the register IS the bathroom*.
> 
> If you can keep people out your bathroom, which is easy to do, then yes you can keep drug users out of your Starbucks...wonder if BM will agree with this, my guess is no.


You don't even make any sense. 

So you admit the bathroom isn't visible from the register, yet you claim it would be easy to keep people out of the bathroom. 

That makes zero sense. Do you even listen to what you are saying


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You don't even make any sense.
> 
> So you admit the bathroom isn't visible from the register, yet you claim it would be easy to keep people out of the bathroom.
> 
> That makes zero sense. Do you even listen to what you are saying


You already forget about when I said lock the bathroom and put an out of order sign?? I can’t believe how specific and repeating I have to be when talking with you. Putting a sign up and locking the doors seems easy enough...

But just to be Uber specific for ya... if I lock my bathroom doors and put an out of order sign up, do you think it would be easy to keep people from using drugs in my Starbucks?


----------



## Draykorinee

Can we just remove the fucking dumbass narrative that that only people injecting in restaurants or cafes are illicit drug users. 

Only a right ignorant cunt would think giving diabetic people access to a sharps box in public restrooms is a bad idea and rush to the heroin users.

As someone who works to promote safe sharps practices as part of my job, fuck you.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Can we just remove the fucking dumbass narrative that that only people injecting in restaurants or cafes are illicit drug users.
> 
> Only a right ignorant cunt would think giving diabetic people access to a sharps box in public restrooms is a bad idea and rush to the heroin users.
> 
> As someone who works to promote safe sharps practices as part of my job, fuck you.


I wouldn't get that upset. It's just that their far right buddies are outraged by this therefore they are too. That's all there is to it. And most people know that Starbucks is an SJWOOOO company therefore it in particular must be criticized even when they're doing a good thing for once. And the double whammy is that it's California. ERMAGURD LIBTARD STATE! *REEEEE*

Everything is a partisan issue now


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I wouldn't get that upset. It's just that their far right buddies are outraged by this therefore they are too. That's all there is to it. And most people know that Starbucks is an SJWOOOO company therefore it in particular must be criticized even when they're doing a good thing for once. And the double whammy is that it's California. ERMAGURD LIBTARD STATE! *REEEEE*
> 
> Everything is a partisan issue now


Yeah, I just know what its like having hundreds of diabetic kids and adults on my list who can't go out to restaurants without a sharps box who would love this. There are more insulin dependent diabetics than IVDU's in the UK by some margin and most of those are kids with an auto immune response. If the negative of that is you get a small number of junkies, it will ALWAYS be worth it, because those junkies are going to chuck it on the floor otherwise.

Anyone with an ounce of compassion or knowledge of public health initiatives would think of this as a good thing, only the truly ignorant would see a negative in this.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Yeah, I just know what its like having hundreds of diabetic kids and adults on my list who can't go out to restaurants without a sharps box who would love this. There are more insulin dependent diabetics than IVDU's in the UK by some margin and most of those are kids with an auto immune response. If the negative of that is you get a small number of junkies, it will ALWAYS be worth it, because those junkies are going to chuck it on the floor otherwise.
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of compassion or knowledge of public health initiatives would think of this as a good thing, only the truly ignorant would see a negative in this.


I don’t think it’s as much the box as it is the drug use and nothing being done to stop it in a place of business, at least for me.

As for the box, I’ve never seen a “sharps box” for diabetic people in a public place or restroom. And I don’t just mean my po dunk areas, I mean major US cities. In fact only place I’ve ever seen a needle disposal box is a dr office or hospital. Diabetics aren’t notoriously known for being lazy with disposal of their needles either. Is this a UK thing where disposal boxes are common in public places for diabetics or others with a legit medical need for a shot/needle?


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> You already forget about when I said lock the bathroom and put an out of order sign?? I can’t believe how specific and repeating I have to be when talking with you. Putting a sign up and locking the doors seems easy enough...
> 
> But just to be Uber specific for ya... if I lock my bathroom doors and put an out of order sign up, do you think it would be easy to keep people from using drugs in my Starbucks?


Lmao. So your so called logic is to never have your bathroom open. Cant even take you seriously.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Lmao. So your so called logic is to never have your bathroom open. Cant even take you seriously.


Good deflection...and if people are using it to shoot up heroin you think shutting it down is a bad idea?? 

Could you please answer the question though??


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083563956143353861
ye the left (fakes and progressives alike) is full of shit re: immigration but hey what do you expect, it is literally the whole ballgame


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083759782098583553
okay now I feel conflicted

rorschach and latinas are some of my favorite things ugh


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> As for the box, I’ve never seen a “sharps box” for diabetic people in a public place or restroom. And I don’t just mean my po dunk areas, I


Sadly no, my patients do complain of the stigma associated with injecting and carrying a box of used needles with them, most of them would love this to be an option. Most of my patients are under the age of 30, but this is going to be a worsening issue as the numbers of t1 diabetics increases due to the huge rise in T2.

The sad thing is if you put a sharps bin somewhere all people associate that with is illicit drugs when the vast majority of people who inject are injecting life saving medication like epi pens or insulin.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> ye the left (fakes and progressives alike) is full of shit re: immigration but hey what do you expect, it is literally the whole ballgame


Ignoring the fact this has been written by what looks like a twelve year old (you drunk?), are you really surprised that the 'left' are hypocrites when it comes to saint Obama? 2 Wrongs don't make a right both talking shite. Also the Democrats aren't the left.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Ignoring the fact this has been written by what looks like a twelve year old (you drunk?), are you really surprised that the 'left' are hypocrites when it comes to saint Obama? 2 Wrongs don't make a right both talking shite.


I don't recall expressing surprise :hmmm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Good deflection...and if people are using it to shoot up heroin you think shutting it down is a bad idea??
> 
> Could you please answer the question though??


It's not a serious solution. Its a troll answer because you know you have no real legit solution.

And yes it's a bad idea to fuck over everyone else who needs to use the bathroom just because a few people may be shooting up heroin.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083563956143353861
> ye the left (fakes and progressives alike) is full of shit re: immigration but hey what do you expect, it is literally the whole ballgame
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083759782098583553
> okay now I feel conflicted
> 
> rorschach and latinas are some of my favorite things ugh


Obama does not make racist remarks about Mexicans like Trump does, but dont let the facts get in the way of your bullshit.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't recall expressing surprise :hmmm


Fair point.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Sadly no, my patients do complain of the stigma associated with injecting and carrying a box of used needles with them, most of them would love this to be an option. Most of my patients are under the age of 30, but this is going to be a worsening issue as the numbers of t1 diabetics increases due to the huge rise in T2.
> 
> The sad thing is if you put a sharps bin somewhere all people associate that with is illicit drugs when the vast majority of people who inject are injecting life saving medication like epi pens or insulin.


I’ll be fair and admit that disposal boxes in a public place makes me think of hard drug users not diabetics or other people it’s medical issues. It’s probably not fair but that’s how I see it even though I know and deal with more insulin dependent people than I do hard drug users.

They also are much more responsible with their needles than hard drug users and I can agree it sucks to get looped in with them.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Fair point.


I actually would be fine with no wall btw if we dismantled the welfare state and legalized all drugs and refocused law enforcement resources towards combating human trafficking :draper2

of course these things will never happen under either party SO ye build the wall


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's not a serious solution. Its a troll answer because you know you have no real legit solution.
> 
> And yes it's a bad idea to fuck over everyone else who needs to use the bathroom just because a few people may be shooting up heroin.


Bahahaha that’s awesome, let people use your bathroom to shoot up heroin!! That’s the difference between us two I guess.

FYI it’s a bad idea to fuck over everyone else bc someone pees on the floor, not a bad idea to keep someone from using your bathroom to shoot up!!

Not a troll answer by shutting down their only place to shoot up helps keep them out, but hey maybe the drug dealers and KKK guys can get along in your store/restaurant


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> Bahahaha that’s awesome, let people use your bathroom to shoot up heroin!! That’s the difference between us two I guess.
> 
> FYI it’s a bad idea to fuck over everyone else bc someone pees on the floor, not a bad idea to keep someone from using your bathroom to shoot up!!
> 
> Not a troll answer by shutting down their only place to shoot up helps keep them out, but hey maybe the drug dealers and KKK guys can get along in your store/restaurant


You are biting off your nose to spite your face , that is your logic.

But using your logic, I guess we should ban all guns so no one can do mass shootings anymore right? Because if you say no, then I guess you are for mass shootings.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are biting off your nose to spite your face , that is your logic.
> 
> But using your logic, I guess we should ban all guns so no one can do mass shootings anymore right? Because if you say no, then I guess you are for mass shootings.


You gotta find a better expression than that it’s like the third time I’ve seen you use that...

And you aren’t just moving the goal posts you’re creating an entirely different debate, which we can do but I’d like to finish our first discussion unless you’re tired of me wearing you out and you’re starting to see how dumb it sounds to be ok with people using your bathroom to shoot up heroin. 

But if we are going to use logic (and you’re new argument makes zero sense) by your logic, since people are going to do it anyways, let’s do nothing to stop it so you would be ok with mass shootings as well!!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



blaird said:


> You gotta find a better expression than that it’s like the third time I’ve seen you use that...
> 
> And you aren’t just moving the goal posts you’re creating an entirely different debate, which we can do but I’d like to finish our first discussion unless you’re tired of me wearing you out and you’re starting to see how dumb it sounds to be ok with people using your bathroom to shoot up heroin.
> 
> But if we are going to use logic (and you’re new argument makes zero sense) by your logic, since people are going to do it anyways, let’s do nothing to stop it so you would be ok with mass shootings as well!!


LOL Im not moving the goal posts at all. I am using your logic but you see how ridiculous it is when I use it as an example on something else.

I love how you lie and claim I am ok with people shooting up in the bathroom.

I said its stupid to say the way to stop it is to close your bathroom for everyone. Its shit like this why I always think you are trolling. Because you make up strawman arguments because you can't make a legit argument to back up your point


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Im not moving the goal posts at all. I am using your logic but you see how ridiculous it is when I use it as an example on something else.
> 
> I love how you lie and claim I am ok with people shooting up in the bathroom.
> 
> I said its stupid to say the way to stop it is to close your bathroom for everyone. Its shit like this why I always think you are trolling. Because you make up strawman arguments because you can't make a legit argument to back up your point


Oh but you are moving the goal posts when it goes to a completely unrelated topic. Hard to really compare mass shootings to shooting up in a bathroom so let’s just stay on this part for a bit then we can go to your insane mass shooting comparison.

You keep using straw man but I’m not sure you know what that means. You told me I couldn’t stop drug use in my store and I presented the most common sense way. The only refute you have is to call it a troll post bc it is actually the easiest way to accomplish the objective. But if it isn’t a legit argument (which my only argument has been that I can stop drug use in my store if I owned a Starbucks) please make my case for me. If people are using my bathroom to use drugs how can I stop it?? 

If you’re only answer is you can’t, you are wrong bc locking the bathrooms gives them no place to use unless they are ok using in public. I mean I guess I could go in the bathroom with everyone to make sure (this would be a trolly way) or discriminate against homeless looking people who I think may be using the free bathroom to shoot up but that seems like a logistical nightmare...so what else is there oh wise one??


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion*



blaird said:


> Oh but you are moving the goal posts when it goes to a completely unrelated topic. Hard to really compare mass shootings to shooting up in a bathroom so let’s just stay on this part for a bit then we can go to your insane mass shooting comparison.
> 
> You keep using straw man but I’m not sure you know what that means. You told me I couldn’t stop drug use in my store and I presented the most common sense way. The only refute you have is to call it a troll post bc it is actually the easiest way to accomplish the objective. But if it isn’t a legit argument (which my only argument has been that I can stop drug use in my store if I owned a Starbucks) please make my case for me. If people are using my bathroom to use drugs how can I stop it??
> 
> If you’re only answer is you can’t, you are wrong bc locking the bathrooms gives them no place to use unless they are ok using in public. I mean I guess I could go in the bathroom with everyone to make sure (this would be a trolly way) or discriminate against homeless looking people who I think may be using the free bathroom to shoot up but that seems like a logistical nightmare...so what else is there oh wise one??


it's not moving the goal posts. It's a perfect analogy to show how ridiculous your solution is. 

You are the one who does not know what a strawman argument is. You keep lying what about I am saying to try to prove your point. 

I just think its funny you think its a legit solution to just say yeah you will lie about your bathroom being out of order and fuck over all your customers just top try and stop a few people that may be shooting up in your bathroom.

Just wait for the backlash of all your customers and employees that you don't have a working bathroom

You can keep lying about what I am saying all you want but it just shows that you have to do that, how badly you are losing a debate.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion*



birthday_massacre said:


> it's not moving the goal posts. It's a perfect analogy to show how ridiculous your solution is.
> 
> You are the one who does not know what a strawman argument is. You keep lying what about I am saying to try to prove your point.
> 
> I just think its funny you think its a legit solution to just say yeah you will lie about your bathroom being out of order and fuck over all your customers just top try and stop a few people that may be shooting up in your bathroom.
> 
> Just wait for the backlash of all your customers and employees that you don't have a working bathroom
> 
> You can keep lying about what I am saying all you want but it just shows that you have to do that, how badly you are losing a debate.


It was the worst argument or comparison you have ever made that’s how bad it is...yes let’s ban a legal thing as a comparison to something that’s already illegal (heroin). 

What do you think upsets customers more....the bathroom closed and they have to hold it for a few or walking in and seeing someone shooting up? Customers will be fine....you think it’s the first business that shut its bathroom down for a bit? If I was a customer and walked in the bathroom to someone with a needle in their arm I would come unglued, but if I gotta pee and the bathroom is closed, cool I can hold it a few until I get where I’m going. 

I really don’t think you would want heroin users in your Starbucks but you have offered nothing as a way of stopping it. How crazy this sounds to you (me thinking you’re ok with drug users) is exactly how crazy it sounds to me when you say I don’t care about saving lives in your gun control debates, but even then I could meet you in the middle on some points. 

And I don’t think I have lied about anything you’ve said other than you being ok with heroin users using your place to shoot up but I was just using that as a point to show how dumb it sounds when you use the similar thing in gun control debates.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion*



blaird said:


> It was the worst argument or comparison you have ever made that’s how bad it is...yes let’s ban a legal thing as a comparison to something that’s already illegal (heroin).
> 
> What do you think upsets customers more....the bathroom closed and they have to hold it for a few or walking in and seeing someone shooting up? Customers will be fine....you think it’s the first business that shut its bathroom down for a bit? If I was a customer and walked in the bathroom to someone with a needle in their arm I would come unglued, but if I gotta pee and the bathroom is closed, cool I can hold it a few until I get where I’m going.
> 
> I really don’t think you would want heroin users in your Starbucks but you have offered nothing as a way of stopping it. How crazy this sounds to you (me thinking you’re ok with drug users) is exactly how crazy it sounds to me when you say I don’t care about saving lives in your gun control debates, but even then I could meet you in the middle on some points.
> 
> And I don’t think I have lied about anything you’ve said other than you being ok with heroin users using your place to shoot up but I was just using that as a point to show how dumb it sounds when you use the similar thing in gun control debates.


You keep going in circles. I have already spoken to everything you said.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Been a long time since I did a long political post but there's a lot to respond to so buckle up :lol.

An unfortunate fact to address is when it comes to men and women with the dating scene, women who are dating or marrying men on a general level tend to mate up the dominance hierarchy meaning they choose partners who are more successful on the socio-economic level. The reason for this can be largely explained through evolutionary biology dating back to when men were the hunters/gatherers and women were the primary caregivers. Traditionally speaking men have been the primary breadwinners expected to look after their female partners and their prospective children whether it was through physical strength or through financial means. 

This largely explains why there has been an increase of women who are career minded earning large salaries who are single. Not only do they have less time to date but when they do, many don't want to date a man who is less successful than them on the socio-economic ladder. This is best explained in my opinion on an evolutionary level: women on a primal level want a man who can look after her and protect her when she is at her most vunerable which would be during pregnancy as at that point all of her devotion would be towards rearing child birth. 

Of course there are exceptions to the rule and it is changing now in our modern world where it is slowly becoming more acceptable for men to become the primary caretaker but it is going take time for us to adjust fully on a societal and cultural level. We are talking about thousands of years where these evolutionary roles has played out and it's only very recently we've seen instances where there are a significant amount of women who are becoming more successful career wise than men which has completely flipped the script. When you have men who are lower on the economic ladder and you have more women who are earning higher salaries, it is only a natural consequence that more people are going to be single. Those biological traits and instincts on the whole don't suddenly reverse and do a 180 overnight.

So this has been a consequence to having more women in higher positions in the workforce and is a growing reason why there are more people who are single and less overall marriages. This is what Tucker has hit on in his video (I actually watched it yes) and he is absolutely spot on.

Where I disagree is the angle he is taking on when it comes to specifically low income. I understand the points he is making and there are a number of interesting and quite frankly good points he makes but I don't think it really relates to the issues he is talking about here. This absolutely has to do with income but not in the way that he and other people seem to think. The key point being, he relates this to America specifically and stagnant wages but in other countries where the minimum wage and average salaries are higher (to which, with the exception of Australia, all of those countries don't have minimum wage laws....funny that  ) the same trend persists. It's not just happening in the states, it's happening in a lot of western countries even in countries where wages are higher and are growing.

So the issue isn't specifically low income, the issue is women who are earning more than their male counterparts but don't want to date down the dominance hierarchy. So there are less men in higher waged jobs with more women competing for those men which inevitably leaves more women single as they don't want to be dating or marrying men who are lower than them on the socio-economic ladder. Again, to stress, OBVIOUSLY there are exceptions and I think over time those exceptions will grow larger but it will take time. It's still a very new thing in human history that women are in many fields out earning men, almost on a first time level. I do not think it's a bad thing that women are able to have successful careers, I think regardless of what gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality and so forth there should be equal opportunity to climb the socio-economic ladder. But there are consequences happening we should be aware of and at least address so that we know and are aware that it is there. I'm cautious to say find solutions to because I'm not sure if it is an issue that even needs solutions or one which eventually over time will play itself out. I think that really remains to be seen.

Going back to low income, the idea that the west's declining birth rate, late marriages, or choosing to not get married or have children (in some cases either or) is linked to low wages I'm sorry to say is patently false. The argument itself completely ignores the massive cultural shifts which have happened over the last century and especially several decades. These include:

* The decriminalization and increase of pre-martial sex

* The revolution of birth control and family planning

* Legalizing abortion and divorces

* The overall decline of religiosity in the west.


When religion was still the backbone and pillar of society, the idea was that if you were having sex you going to get pregnant, which means that whenever the next generation were going to be raised it had to happen with men and women in stable and steady relationships under the guise of marriage. This is why pre-marital sex and adultery were frowned upon.

Contraception and the birth control pill changed everything because now couples could enact family planning, meaning that sex could be had safely without the need of getting pregnant. People's attitudes to sex and to relationships have also changed over time as governments have liberalized choice when it comes to abortion and divorces especially. As have people's attitude towards religion which held the ideas of marriage and children being the most important contribution towards society. The west right now is the most non-religious that it has ever been and it's looking likely to continue.

As birth control and family planning in terms of access and effectiveness has increased, so has the idea of delaying pregnancy and even marriage. The low income argument does not explain why an affluent couple may choose to not have children till their late 30's or even early 40's, or to even not have children at all. It also does not explain the countless examples of couples on low income who get married early or have children at a young age. Jeremy Kyle exists for a reason! ( @Santa With Muscles :HA ).

Low income generally is not the reason for declining birth rates or marriages, the reason is cultural largely due to the shifts I've laid out. If there is one area where income has had an impact on these issues, it's actually the issue of women starting to earn higher salaries than men in recent years. But again, that's a *recent* phenomenon which has only really started happening in the 21st century.


------------------------------------------------


As far as the sharp boxes and drug use issue goes, I'm going to start with Starbucks specifically first and then broaden out because I have quite a few different thoughts on this. Firstly, reading articles and watching the video linked, I think it's safe to say that drug use and dealing with hypodermic needles is an issue that has been out there for a while before the Starbucks news ever hit the internet. At the same time, considering the spike in incidents I think it is fair to say that opening up the bathrooms to non-customers has exacerbated the situation.

My take on this shouldn't surprise people who know me well but if Starbucks want to install sharp boxes in certain stores like they are doing or hell, if it's just a general business policy then that is their prerogative. I do agree that it is better for drug users to be contained in a safe environment rather than out on the streets. 

Do I think the best place for them is in a barista or that barista's or restaurants should be doing this in my personal opinion? *Fuck no.* For a tonne of reasons. For starters, I don't think customers are going to be comfortable knowing that Starbucks are aiding and abetting drug use and I don't think I am in the minority opinion on this (but who knows, I could be wrong). Secondly, it would be even worse for families who are bringing in their children. If I knew that a restaurant or barista was putting in sharp boxes for the reasons that Starbucks are doing so there is no way i would take my (prospective future) child or children in there.

Having said that, I do understand the other side of the argument for one reason and it's actually something I don't think anyone has brought up yet to my knowledge but it is understandably very hard to monitor the potential users when they are going to the bathroom to shoot up as it is effectively in a private place. Whilst I do think not having an open bathroom policy would help to mitigate the problem somewhat, the chances are you still are going to have customers who are also drug users. So it's going to be an issue regardless. However, and this is just my opinion I'm not saying it should be enforced but a businesses primary concern is *towards their customers.* Which is why I think most people if they knew a company were taking actions which essentially accept the use of drugs in their facility (even if that is the not the thought process or intention) would not be comfortable being around that particular store and it would cause issues. Again, maybe I'll end up being wrong but that's my take.

At the end of the day, it's up to the business what they do, customers will vote with their feet regardless whether it's positively, negatively or indifferent.

Finally, expanding this issue a little bit, the idea of sharp boxes being used for diabetic people that @Draykorinee also perked my interest. I actually do think that this is a good idea and if businesses what to install sharp boxes for the intent purpose of helping diabetic people I do support that. The problem in this instance is from all the articles I have read, Starbucks have specifically installed these sharp boxes to deal with the drug users and there has been no mention of the policy being aimed at or for diabetic people. That I feel is what people have a problem with and it's what I personally have a problem with.

Now of course, that is an issue of framing rather than what the sharp boxes would actually do but framing and marketing in a sense is everything when we are talking about service based businesses. So unfortunately it does matter. There is also the issue of abuse which there would be a chance of happening which is going to be hard to monitor but this is one of those rare times where I think the intent does matter. I'd be much more supportive and sympathetic if the sharp boxes are being installed for the right reasons and there happens to be unintended consequences than if it is aimed for the wrong ones.

Having said that, if we just treated drug use overall as a health problem rather than a criminal one and encouraged actual safe places with medical professionals there away from the general public where drug addicts can get their fix safely and perhaps work towards getting cleaned up then maybe this doesn't become an issue. But what the fuck do I know .


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Tulsi Gabbard is running for President

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-run-1098629


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Obama does not make racist remarks about Mexicans like Trump does, but dont let the facts get in the way of your bullshit.


I must have missed the announcement of Mexico becoming a race.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> I must have missed the announcement of Mexico becoming a race.


Right because Mexicans aren't latino. Its always amusing watching people like you try to defend Trump's racism with that semantic "defense". Only on WF would people try to defend racism because the think they found a technicality when they really didn't.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Tulsi Gabbard is running for President
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-run-1098629


Sadly the dems will do everything to keep her from winning the nomination. It will be someone like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker running for the Democratic nomination.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/%5Burl%5Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fmobile.twitter.com%2FKyleKulinski%2Fstatus%2F1082687718604316672%5B%2Furl%5D


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Tulsi decided to run 2 terms (8 years) too early imo.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Tulsi decided to run 2 terms (8 years) too early imo.


I agree but disagree. It depends on how she plays it. If she gets in there and changes the debate on foreign policy, it is undeniably a good thing, and with the way the primaries are set up, if she has no chance of winning, she can still run for and keep her seat in the House or possibly get a cabinet position in a potential Bernie WH. Personally, I'd love to see her as Secretary of State. Some people have been floating the idea of her being Bernie's running mate but the SOS has way more power than the VP. Plus, it would be glorious to have her representing the USA on the international stage.


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Right because Mexicans aren't latino. Its always amusing watching people like you try to defend Trump's racism with that semantic "defense". Only on WF would people try to defend racism because the think they found a technicality when they really didn't.


Latino's aren't a race either, as a matter of fact there is a lot of racism between Latinos, Mexico even has a unofficial Caste system based on Racial backgrounds

Not trying to justify anti Latino bigorty but it is ignorant to call them a race, its more of a cultural identity, its like Arabs where everyone who speaks arabic as a mother tongue is a arab


----------



## Illogical

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

How about just saying "people who want the wall don't want brown people in the country". Sounds like a race. It's also accurate.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Illogical said:


> How about just saying "people who want the wall don't want brown people in the country". Sounds like a race. It's also accurate.


Mind-reader delusion fallacy.


----------



## BRITLAND

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...otrack-corbyns-policies-popular-europe-and-uk










Apparently these are how popular each of Jeremy Corbyn's main policies are in various countries in Europe and the USA.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Adam Cool said:


> Latino's aren't a race either, as a matter of fact there is a lot of racism between Latinos, Mexico even has a unofficial Caste system based on Racial backgrounds
> 
> Not trying to justify anti Latino bigorty but it is ignorant to call them a race, its more of a cultural identity, its like Arabs where everyone who speaks arabic as a mother tongue is a arab


You just contracted yourself. You said there is a lot of racism between latinos and Mexicans but using your flawed logic how can that be trure if neither are a race? Thanks for proving my point its racism.


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You just contracted yourself. You said there is a lot of racism between latinos and Mexicans but using your flawed logic how can that be trure if neither are a race? Thanks for proving my point its racism.


I said there is racism between "european" Mexicans and Mexican Mestizos and Native Mexicans 

Mestizos are a race, Latinos are a cultural group 

If a person doesn't want Latino Migrants because he hates Mestizos or because he thinks Spanish people are "swarthy Moors inferior to Blonde Nordics", then its racism


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Adam Cool said:


> I said there is racism between "european" Mexicans and Mexican Mestizos and Native Mexicans
> 
> Mestizos are a race, Latinos are a cultural group
> 
> If a person doesn't want Latino Migrants because he hates Mestizos or because he thinks Spanish people are "swarthy Moors inferior to Blonde Nordics", then its racism


LOL no you didn't. This is your exact quote


Adam Cool said:


> Latino's aren't a race either, *as a matter of fact there is a lot of racism between Latinos, Mexico even has a unofficial Caste system based on Racial backgrounds*



Nowhere did you say European or mestizos.
Stop defending racist with semantic arguments.

Would it make you feel better if the word bigoted was used? It's the same difference. 

If you are bigoted toward Mexicans, Latinos, Hispanics etc you are bigoted toward brown-skinned people and that is racism

You can get all cute with wordplay all you want, it just makes it seem like you are defending racist and racism

If you are using racial slurs against Mexicans, you are racist. It's hilarious you think it's not.


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL no you didn't. This is your exact quote
> 
> 
> Nowhere did you say European or mestizos.
> Stop defending racist with semantic arguments.
> 
> Would it make you feel better if the word bigoted was used? It's the same difference.
> 
> If you are bigoted toward Mexicans, Latinos, Hispanics etc you are bigoted toward brown-skinned people and that is racism
> 
> You can get all cute with wordplay all you want, it just makes it seem like you are defending racist and racism
> 
> If you are using racial slurs against Mexicans, you are racist. It's hilarious you think it's not.


I never defended Slurs, ever. Stop putting words in my mouth


----------



## birthday_massacre

Adam Cool said:


> I never defended Slurs, ever. Stop putting words in my mouth


So someone using slurs against Mexicans is racist?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Right because Mexicans aren't latino. Its always amusing watching people like you try to defend Trump's racism with that semantic "defense". Only on WF would people try to defend racism because the think they found a technicality when they really didn't.


Latino is the race, not Mexican as its just a country. If you say insulting stuff about Mexicans, it's not attacking all Latino's, that's why it wouldn't be considered racist but rather more along the lines of Xenophobia. I'm not defending racism, I'm criticizing your constant misuse of words in attempts to smear people you don't like and throwing those words around lightly and not taking into account their true meaning. You have a genuine problem in doing so, its no different than you throwing around comparisons between people you dont' like and Hitler. It's garbage.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Congratulations on all the medals y'all.


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So someone using slurs against Mexicans is racist?


Most of the times yes


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Latino is the race, not Mexican as its just a country. If you say insulting stuff about Mexicans, it's not attacking all Latino's, that's why it wouldn't be considered racist but rather more along the lines of Xenophobia. I'm not defending racism, I'm criticizing your constant misuse of words in attempts to smear people you don't like and throwing those words around lightly and not taking into account their true meaning. You have a genuine problem in doing so, its no different than you throwing around comparisons between people you dont' like and Hitler. It's garbage.


Mexicans are latinos. Just because someone is using the term Mexican instead of latino doesn’t mean its not racism. Its just parsing words. Its just semantics.

Its just amusing all the mental gymnastics you jump through to defend Trumps racism



Adam Cool said:


> Most of the times yes


So you are contracting yourself again. Using your logic it cant be because Mexican is not a race.


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Mexicans are latinos. Just because someone is using the term Mexican instead of latino doesn’t mean its not racism. Its just parsing words. Its just semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are contracting yourself again. Using your logic it cant be because Mexican is not a race.


No I am not 

My point was that Latinos are not a race , unless you wanna argue that an afro latino and a White Mexican are the same

Most of those slurs are used with Anti Spanish or anti Mestizo racism intent , so its racist


----------



## birthday_massacre

Adam Cool said:


> No I am not
> 
> My point was that Latinos are not a race , unless you wanna argue that an afro latino and a White Mexican are the same
> 
> Most of those slurs are used with Anti Spanish or anti Mestizo racism intent , so its racist


Yes you’re contradicting yourself. You can’t have it both ways.

And yes latino is the race.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Racism is about context. 

Right wing Politicians aren't "racists", but racists sure love them because they love hearing the views thrown out there and they know the context which is why racists always come out in full support of those politicians. And those politicians know it as well but pretend to condemn them - and that's the *real* problem.

Right wing politicians sanitize racist rhetoric by skirting the line between outright racism, and pandering to racist views using slightly less offensive terms. But you can absolutely tell when they're pandering to the racists for votes and support. Always.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Racism is about context.
> 
> Right wing Politicians aren't "racists", but racists sure love them because they love hearing the views thrown out there and they know the context which is why racists always come out in full support of those politicians. And those politicians know it as well but pretend to condemn them - and that's the *real* problem.


Right winged winged politicians can be racist. 
Just look at steve king.


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes you’re contradicting yourself. You can’t have it both ways.
> 
> And yes latino is the race.


So a Black Latino is the same as a white Latino 
Got it


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Right winged winged politicians can be racist.
> Just look at steve king.


That's why I put "racist" in quotation marks. Racism like anything else is subjective and being subjective it's tough to pin as an outright label on someone because they can always pretend to have a different motivation.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Adam Cool said:


> So a Black Latino is the same as a white Latino
> Got it


There are subcategories just like with Asians. Chinese asians are not the same as India asians but both are asians.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh, so its all about your feelings and you would rather be oblivious to the fact people are shooting up in that store. Because either way people are shooting up. Just one has a safe solution and the other does. And you would rather go into the one that does not have a safe solution and you call others illogical lol
> 
> Your whole line of thinking is illogical.


Heroin users are shooting up in Starbucks and you think THEE problem, THEE issue... is that there's nowhere for them to dispose their needles. Your priorities are astounding. 

"Oh well it's happening anyways there's nothing you can do"... bullshit. You don't see junkies shooting up in Ruth Chris and P.F. Chang's. Starbucks is not some massive superstore, it's very easy to monitor your store and monitor who's using the restroom. This is not some unavoidable problem unless you choose not to confront it. 

By installing needle disposal boxes you're pretty much announcing to everyone that junkies and users are coming in and out the store. Who the fuck wants to go there after that? Would you? Would you take your kids there?

And please for all of you giving us shit about diabetic people, stfu. They aren't the ones leaving behind needles. Nobody was talking about diabetics so there's no need to muddy the waters. This is specifically happening in an area of Seattle where the drug abuse is high and the employees that created the petition are directly claiming the problem has gotten worse as a result of the open bathroom policy.

Half measures like disposal boxes isn't a solution, it's not even a band-aid. The problem still persists. The idea is to keep people like these the fuck out.




edit: Liking BM's posts should be a bannable offense.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Heroin users are shooting up in Starbucks and you think THEE problem, THEE issue... is that there's nowhere for them to dispose their needles. Your priorities are astounding.
> 
> "Oh well it's happening anyways there's nothing you can do"... bullshit. You don't see junkies shooting up in Ruth Chris and P.F. Chang's. Starbucks is not some massive superstore, it's very easy to see monitor your store and monitor who's using the restroom. This is not some unavoidable problem unless you choose not to confront it.
> 
> By installing needle disposal boxes you're pretty much announcing to everyone that junkies and users are coming in and out the store. Who the fuck wants to go there after that? Would you? Would you take your kids there?
> 
> And please for all of you giving us shit about diabetic people, stfu. They aren't the ones leaving behind needles. Nobody was talking about diabetics so there's no need to muddy the waters. *This is specifically happening in an area of Seattle where the drug abuse is hig*h and the employees that created the petition are directly claiming the problem has gotten worse as a result of the open bathroom policy.
> 
> Half measures like disposal boxes isn't a solution, it's not even a band-aid. The problem still persists. The idea is to keep people like these the fuck out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit: Liking BM's posts should be a bannable offense.


It's only happening in on a small number of all the Starbucks in the US. That is called an outlier. It's not happening at every single Starbucks so the open bathroom policy is not a widespread issue just because this is an issue at a few locations in one area of Seattle.

And LOL at you getting triggered because people like some of my posts.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's only happening in on a small section of all the Starbucks in the US. That is called an outlier. It's not happening at every single Starbucks so the open bathroom policy is not an issue just because this is an issue at a few locations in one area of Seattle.
> 
> And LOL at you getting triggered because people like some of my posts.


I'm not triggered by you, I'm amused by you. You are the one who's triggered because you neg me multiple times a day. 

You refuse to face the problem. Even if it's happening in just one area, it's still happening. It's going to get worse before it gets better. If the employees are saying the bathroom policy has made it worse, then why wouldn't you take them at their word?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> I'm not triggered by you, I'm amused by you. You are the one who's triggered because you neg me multiple times a day.
> 
> You refuse to face the problem. Even if it's happening in just one area, it's still happening. It's going to get worse before it gets better. If the employees are saying the bathroom policy has made it worse, then why wouldn't you take them at their word?


But the bathroom policy has not made it worse because if it were then it would be a problem everywhere and it's not. Again you need to learn the word outlier. 

Keep getting triggered, it's adorable.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Latino is the race, not Mexican as its just a country. If you say insulting stuff about Mexicans, it's not attacking all Latino's, that's why it wouldn't be considered racist but rather more along the lines of Xenophobia. I'm not defending racism, I'm criticizing your constant misuse of words in attempts to smear people you don't like and throwing those words around lightly and not taking into account their true meaning. You have a genuine problem in doing so, its no different than you throwing around comparisons between people you dont' like and Hitler. It's garbage.


Look I don't think there should any be rules whatsoever, but if the mods are going to try and curb the way people confront and insult one another then there should be consequences for outright calling someone a racist or a bigot. It's just as bad. 

I take offense to being called a racist. You aren't just insinuating that I'm a bad person you're also insinuating that I'm dumb as well. Because in order to be racist you also have to be dumb. And yet if someone directly called you a retard or an idiot on this forum they would probably get some kind of warning.

You shouldn't resort to disgusting allegations just because you don't possess the objectivity or the mental fitness to defend your arguments.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *But the bathroom policy has not made it worse *because if it were then it would be a problem everywhere and it's not. Again you need to learn the word outlier.
> 
> Keep getting triggered, it's adorable.


Let's not listen to people who work at Starbucks and inspired the petition, instead let's listen to Lyin Massacre. Surely he has the inside scoop.


----------



## Buttermaker

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Even if it’s baby steps, any action to help any problem is fantastic. It would be impossible to keep every single person out of your store, restaurant, business etc, so if there is a place for sharps to go that isn’t in the garbage or on the ground where a kid could touch it, it’s no big deal. However, that doesn’t get to the root of the issue.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Let's not listen to people who work at Starbucks and inspired the petition, instead let's listen to Lyin Massacre. Surely he has the inside scoop.


How has it made it worse when at 99.9% of Starbucks locations, the bathroom policy has no issues? You can't even be objective here.

And LOL at your Trumpish name calling.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *How has it made it worse when at 99.9% of Starbucks locations, the bath policy has no issues?* You can't even be objective here.
> 
> And LOL at your Trump name calling.


Don't ask me, ask the Starbucks employees that you are choosing not to believe.

And it's not just Seattle. Here is a Starbucks manager in California expressing dislike for the bathroom policy:

https://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-workers-petition-bathroom-needle-disposal-boxes-2019-1

"I think the bathroom policy has definitely changed the store's environment," one manager who works at a Starbucks location in Southern California told Business Insider. "It's great that Starbucks wants to try and include everyone, but that means that they include absolutely everyone." 

Translation: More undesirables are coming into the store

I know, I know... fake news. Let's all listen to LM.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Don't ask me, ask the Starbucks employees that you are choosing not to believe.
> 
> And it's not just Seattle. Here is a Starbucks manager in California expressing dislike for the bathroom policy:
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-workers-petition-bathroom-needle-disposal-boxes-2019-1
> 
> "I think the bathroom policy has definitely changed the store's environment," one manager who works at a Starbucks location in Southern California told Business Insider. "It's great that Starbucks wants to try and include everyone, but that means that they include absolutely everyone."
> 
> Translation: More undesirables are coming into the store
> 
> I know, I know... fake news. Let's all listen to LM.


So where did that other Starbucks business owner say needles were a problem? Oh, that's right he/she didn't. 

it also funny you ignored your own article "A Starbucks employee named Jamie, from the Twin Cities area in Minnesota, said she has found an array of worrisome items in bathrooms over the last 13 years, some of which she has provided photos of for this story."

So the stuff you are talking about has been going on long before the bathroom policy changed as well. 

And keep calling me names, its just funny you were complaining about so-called name calling but you are the one calling me names lol

You are unraveling as we speak.


----------



## Buttermaker

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The article says that it became such an issues that Starbucks took the intuitive to help clean up the issue by installing the sharps boxes. 

So it’s weird that the drug use was happening before the sharp boxes were installed.....


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

How many junkies do you think care enough to even use the boxes? I'm not sure, but as it stands, they don't seem to give a fuck what happens to the needles, are they going to suddenly become semi-responsible now that they're in the bathroom at Starbucks? Just throwing that out there.


----------



## Buttermaker

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> How many junkies do you think care enough to even use the boxes? I'm not sure, but as it stands, they don't seem to give a fuck what happens to the needles, are they going to suddenly become semi-responsible now that they're in the bathroom at Starbucks? Just throwing that out there.


I look at it as a harmless attempt to curb needless etc ending up on the floor. In the end, it hurts nobody, however solve a greater issue, it does not.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Let the madness begin...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084143957670576128


----------



## Draykorinee

777 said:


> How many junkies do you think care enough to even use the boxes? I'm not sure, but as it stands, they don't seem to give a fuck what happens to the needles, are they going to suddenly become semi-responsible now that they're in the bathroom at Starbucks? Just throwing that out there.


There's not a lot of data on the subject. In Belfast they had this to say.



> Anecdotal reports from the contractor (Healthmatic) who maintains these units and removes the drug related materials, suggests a decrease in the inappropriate disposal of sharps in the APCs.


Can't find any robust study on it at present.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Here are the democratic presidential nominees people. 

Choose one.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Buttermaker said:


> I look at it as a harmless attempt to curb needless etc ending up on the floor. In the end, it hurts nobody, however solve a greater issue, it does not.


My philosophy is if it's not solving the greater issue then it's not even worth trying. More importantly it sends the wrong message. 

There needs to be zero tolerance for drug use period. Requesting for there to be disposal boxes undermines that. 

That's condoning it, that's admitting you can't fix the problem.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> My philosophy is i*f it's not solving the greater issue then it's not even worth trying*. More importantly it sends the wrong message.
> 
> *There needs to be zero tolerance for drug use period*. Requesting for there to be disposal boxes undermines that.
> 
> That's condoning it, that's admitting you can't fix the problem.


This is why I can't take you seriously. Also all drugs you should be legalized. Zero tolerance for drug use is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen posted by anyone on this forum.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> This is why I can't take you seriously. Also all drugs you should legalize. Zero tolerance for drug use is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen posted by anyone on this forum.


Zero tolerance for drug use in *STARBUCKS* you ________.

(feel free to fill in the blank with any word synonymous with having a small brain)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Zero tolerance for drug use in *STARBUCKS* you ________.
> 
> (feel free to fill in the blank with any word synonymous with having a small brain)


You didn't say in Starbucks you were making a blanket statement.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You didn't say in Starbucks you were making a blanket statement.


Birthday Massacre ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Buttermaker

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> My philosophy is if it's not solving the greater issue then it's not even worth trying. More importantly it sends the wrong message.
> 
> There needs to be zero tolerance for drug use period. Requesting for there to be disposal boxes undermines that.
> 
> That's condoning it, that's admitting you can't fix the problem.


I agree that maybe it isn’t doing much to help the big drug issue, but one store can’t fight the big picture drug problem. They can only fight the issues within their store, and that’s exactly what they are attempting to do.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Birthday Massacre ladies and gentlemen.


“Nobody said Starbucks”- Ted 2


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084198881968209927
Trolling Claire McCaskill. Good times.

The Establishment is out in full force trashing Tulsi for not wanting to toppling Assad. Michael Tracey has had a lot of good tweets on this topic.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084122440698073089

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084196750116745216


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*










Please run, you fucking creep. :lol


----------



## Rugrat

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Please run, you fucking creep. :lol


I don’t think that’s too much of a biggie. This stuff has been around for a while and from what I’ve seen he is touchy feely with everyone, just the kid photos look worse in isolation. 

The two main issues for me are:

- If he won he’d be finishing his presidency aged 86 

- He’s pretty centre leaning, so probably wouldn’t strike a chord with the Bernie fans; some of whom didn’t vote for Hillary.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Lmao it's not OK to touch kids weirdly just because you touch everyone weirdly.


----------



## Rugrat

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I never said it was

The point is that it’s possible to deflect it, as this creepy stuff has been around for years and not that many people really care.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I never knew creepy uncle was an endearing quality.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

...Kevin Hart needs to be fired but Joe Biden gets to run for POTUS...OK, whatever.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Draykorinee

Amusing to see the gutter press in the UK make up a story about the Rock labeling the new generation as snowflakes, it really brought out the snowflakes upset he didn't say this.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> San Antonio (CNN) — Former secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro officially announced his presidential bid in San Antonio on Saturday, beginning a campaign that will look to turn his uniquely American immigrant story into a direct repudiation of President Donald Trump.
> "When my grandmother got here almost a hundred years ago, I'm sure she never could have imagined that just two generations later, one of her grandsons would be serving as a member of the United States Congress and the other would be standing with you here today to say these words: I am a candidate for President of the United States of America," Castro said.
> 
> Julian Castro announces 2020 presidential run
> 
> 
> Julian Castro announces 2020 presidential run
> 
> Related Video: Julian Castro announces 2020 presidential run 00:58
> Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio, had been considering a bid for nearly two years and announced a presidential exploratory committee in December. He has long been viewed as a rising star in the Democratic Party since he first landed on the national scene by delivering the keynote speech for President Barack Obama at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
> 
> Castro, in an interview with CNN ahead of his official presidential announcement, acknowledged that he will enter the race looking up at the cadre of other Democrats considering running for the party's nomination.
> But Castro, whose grandmother, Victoria Castro, was born in the Mexican border state of Coahuila, and crossed into the United States at Eagle Pass, Texas, in 1922 after her parents died during the Mexican Revolution, added that at no time in his life, from growing up on San Antonio's impoverished West Side to his run for mayor in 2009, was he considered the favorite to get ahead.
> "I am not a frontrunner in this race, but I have not been a frontrunner at any time in my life," Castro said, adding that people who grew up in the neighborhoods he grew up in were never considered frontrunners. "I am going to go speak to them in a way that resonates with them."
> He added: "My family's story is a testament to what is possible when this country gets it right."
> Castro's personal story, along with that of his twin brother, Joaquin, has been central to his rise on the national stage and made up the bulk of his 2012 convention speech.
> Castro's brother - who also serves as a member of Congress - will serve as his campaign chairman, according to a campaign press release provided to CNN.
> Castro was raised primarily by his grandmother -- who he called Mamo -- and Rosie Castro, his Chicana political activist mother, eventually excelling enough to attend Stanford University and, eventually, Harvard Law School. He returned home and served as a member of the San Antonio City Council and, from 2009 until 2014, the mayor of the city. Obama picked him to be housing secretary in 2014.
> Julian Castro moves closer to 2020 presidential run with exploratory committee
> Related Article: Julian Castro moves closer to 2020 presidential run with exploratory committee
> The former mayor was among a handful of contenders to be Clinton's vice presidential pick in 2016. Although he was eventually passed over for Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Castro said Clinton's loss and Trump's victory was the moment he began considering a run.
> "Donald Trump represents the opposite of what I am and what I believe," he said. "For many Americans, a lot changed when Donald Trump got into office. And that is what has compelled me to think about running."
> Castro slammed Trump throughout his announcement speech, particularly some of the language he uses to describe immigrants and his plan to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.
> "We say no to building a wall and say yes to building community. We say no to scapegoating immigrants, and yes to Dreamers, yes to keeping families together, and yes to finally passing comprehensive immigration reform," Castro said to applause.
> Castro, in an interview with CNN after his announcement, dismissed the suggestion that former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke running for the Democratic nomination against him would damage his chances, but he did admit that he wishes the popular Democrat would stay on the sidelines.
> "Of course, I'd rather be the only Democrat running from Texas," Castro said. "But I think that we are going to have a crowded primary, we don't know who is going to run and so everybody is going to have to go and put out their vision and do the hard work of campaigning and reaching voters."
> Castro called himself the "antidote to Trump" because "my story is am immigrant story, is a testament to what immigrants have contributed to this country."
> Castro's entrance makes him the only declared Latino in the Democratic field, a relatively powerful position given how the party has leaned on Latino voters and turnout efforts to tilt states like Nevada, Arizona and Texas their direction in recent years.
> But Castro told CNN that he believes he can perform well in Iowa and is backing that confidence up, according to a source with knowledge of Castro's operation, by naming Derek Eadon, the former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, to a senior role on his nascent campaign.
> Maya Rupert, formerly the executive director of Castro's PAC, will serve as campaign manager and Derek Eadon, formerly the chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, will be Castro's deputy campaign manager.
> Castro and his team have signaled in the lead up to Saturday's announcement that he will lean into his Mexican-American heritage in a presidential run. When the former mayor filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission, he had to hand write in an accent over "a" in Julián, a fact that Castro and his team have held up as proof that he is already changing the system.
> Evidence of this strategy peppered the plaza on San Antonio's West Side where Castro announced on Saturday: A mariachi band welcomed guests, as taco trucks fed people outside. The venue was blocks from Castro's childhood home and across the street from where he was baptized. Even Castro's logo - which emphasizes the accent over the "a" in Julian - highlights the former mayor's heritage.
> The audience in San Antonio was filled with people who knew Castro from his youth, and people who were impacted by his time in elected office.
> Alma Palacios, a Mexican immigrant, decided to name her son Julián after the city's former mayor and now presidential candidate. And the younger Julián, sporting a full Spider-Man outfit, watched as Castro announced his bid.
> "His is an inspiration and a good role model to all of us Hispanics," Palacios said. "It means a lot (to see him announce)."
> Castro does not speak fluent Spanish, writing in his 2018 memoir that his mother spoke English at home, like many immigrants at the time, and that he declined to take Spanish classes in school because he spoke it with his grandmother.
> "I've resolved that before I die, I want to speak it fluently," said Castro, who has used the program Rosetta Stone to learn the language.
> Castro delivered the crescendo of his speech in Spanish and closed with a similar call to action.
> "So, let's get to work," he bellowed. "Vamonos!"
> Castro will travel to San Juan, Puerto Rico, for a campaign event on Monday, before heading to New Hampshire on Tuesday.
> Castro said ahead of his run that he hopes to provide a "positive example" to young Latinos with his run but won't solely focus on courting voters in heavily Latino states and shirk visiting states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
> "I am just going to be myself," he said. "My focus will be about representing everybody but of course there is a special significance to the Latino community especially because many Latinos feels like there is a target on their back from this administration."
> His announcement speech also previewed a candidacy that will focus on good government, education and climate change, an issue Castro called "the biggest threat to our prosperity in the 21st century."
> The Republican National Committee slammed Castro's announcement, calling him "another delusional Democrat."
> 
> Castro was reflective days before his announcement, acknowledging how his wife's support and mother's political work helped him get to this point. If he had a disappointment, he said, it was that is grandmother, who died when he was younger, could not be there to see him.
> "I wish my grandmother could be with us to see it," he said. "Win or lose, I hope that I will have a chance to inspire a lot of young kids out there to reach for their dreams."


http://archive.is/VpK2C#selection-423.0-747.176


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

When SJW's own themselves


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

You really do love posting that shit posting youtuber dont you lol

OH WF What is next will you start posting Josh Feuerstein videos


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

AOC: Facts Don’t Matter When You’re “Morally Right”

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/01/07/aoc-facts-dont-matter-youre-morally-right/

AOC picking up that Trump playbook. bama Probably been reading some Scott Adams.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084590956366704640
The GOP ain't ready for her. :banderas They're gonna make the same mistakes they made trying to stop Trump in the primaries. Give her all of the attention, mock her for not being like them (failing to recognize most Americans hate the political elites), and underestimate her at every turn (also failing to recognize the wide support for a lot of her albeit awful ideas). Predicting right now that AOC will be the source of a lot of GOP L's in the future. Winning her first election in a district where she was demographically guaranteed to win doesn't count, and she won't need it to. 

I don't think I agree with her on a single issue, for what it's worth, and think the country will be worse off with her and people with her political views in power. But facts don't care about my feelings (Ben Shapiro), and facts don't even matter (Donald J. Trump, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), so what's that say about my feelings?! :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I don't take anything Sandy says seriously.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I don't take anything Sandy says seriously.
> 
> - Vic


She doesn't need you to.










She'll run for president in 2024 (after Trump's second term), and I wouldn't be surprised if she won.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You really do love posting that shit posting youtuber dont you lol
> 
> OH WF What is next will you start posting Josh Feuerstein videos


Its quite tiresome, Its like Virus just uses WF as his personal facebook timeline.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> A very important new development with regards to flooding the internet with more Neo-con propaganda, but I doubt anyone's paying attention *sigh*
> 
> I guess it's enough to simply call yourself a "free" country, even if the actual level of freedom is debateable.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't skip this article. Spread it.
> 
> There's another article that has traced all the links The Newguard platform has to neocons and establishment talking heads.
> 
> https://www.mintpressnews.com/newsg...lans-to-wage-war-on-independent-media/253687/
> 
> From this article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find out about more in the article.
> 
> Good luck Americans. We're about to enter a new age of online propaganda. This was a process the neocons started way back in 2002 under Bush. 16 years later, they've made it possible.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084876278065446913
Some people are paying attention.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1084876278065446913
> Some people are paying attention.


"Free market capitalism" ...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






He won't be the nominee, let alone president. His reaction to an outrageous hit piece that fails to establish any wrong-doing on his part is to apologize. Most people won't look into the details of the story, they'll just see "Bernie's campaign mistreated women" and "Bernie apologizes" and think "Wow, guess Bernie did something wrong". This was his first hurdle and he failed spectacularly. Think this is the best they can throw at him? Think again. It'll only get worse from here. 

Bernie embodies the idea that white men, especially straight white men, are inherently guilty of something and must sacrifice their own interests for everyone else. His belief in identity politics will be his undoing, because under that ideology, he quite simply has the wrong identity. :draper2

Gotta say I feel quite vindicated given recent discussions I had on here with people about Bernie and his weak spine. :mj


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I certainly will enjoy the repeat of 1972 and 1984 that will be the presidential campaign where Miss Bug-Eyes is the Democratic nominee.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> I certainly will enjoy the repeat of 1972 and 1984 that will be the presidential campaign where Miss Bug-Eyes is the Democratic nominee.


That country doesn't exist anymore, sadly.


----------



## El Grappleador

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

"La cuarta transformacion" has started.
Current results:
-Lack of Gas.
-Politicians still thefting.
-Much murdered people.
-Divided politic class.
-Divided People.
-Haters, haters everywhere.
-Same Old Shit.

Ain't "La cuarta transformacion". It's "La Cuarta T".


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> That country doesn't exist anymore, sadly.


There are plenty of Murray Chotiners and Lee Atwaters waiting in the wings.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ul-neighbor-attack-canada-surgery/2569965002/



> Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one of the fiercest political critics of socialized medicine, will travel to Canada later this month to get hernia surgery.
> 
> Paul, an ophthalmologist, said the operation is related to an injury sustained in 2017, when his neighbor, Rene Boucher, attacked him while he was mowing his lawn. The incident left Kentucky's junior senator with six broken ribs and a bruised lung.
> 
> He is scheduled to have the outpatient operation at the Shouldice Hernia Hospital in Thornhill, Ontario during the week of Jan. 21, according to documents from Paul's civil lawsuit against Boucher filed in Warren Circuit Court.
> 
> The procedure is estimated to cost anywhere from $5,000 to $8,000, according to court documents. MDsave.com lists a hernia repair costing between $4,000 and $8,000.
> 
> Shouldice Hernia Hospital markets itself as "the global leader in non-mesh hernia repair," according to the clinic's website.
> 
> While Shouldice Hernia Hospital is privately owned — like many Canadian hospitals — it receives a majority of its funding from the Ontario government and accepts the Ontario’s Hospital Insurance Plan.
> 
> The hospital's website outlines payments it accepts, including cash, check or credit card for those patients, like Paul, who are not covered by Ontario's insurance plan or a provincial health insurance plan.
> 
> Kelsey Cooper, a spokeswoman for Paul, said the hospital is privately owned and people come from around the globe for their services.
> 
> “This is more fake news on a story that has been terribly reported from day one — this is a private, world renowned hospital separate from any system and people come from around the world to pay cash for their services,” Cooper said in an email to the Courier Journal.
> 
> Paul, a Republican, often argues for private market solutions to American's health care woes.
> 
> In Canada, medical care is publicly funded and universally provided through the country's Provincial Ministry of Health, and everyone receives the same level of care.
> 
> Paul has called universal health care and nationalized options "slavery."
> 
> “With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care ... It means you believe in slavery," Paul said in 2011. "You are going to enslave not only me but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants, the nurses. … You are basically saying you believe in slavery.”
> 
> Last year, Boucher pleaded guilty to attacking Paul after they reached a breaking point over lawn maintenance.
> 
> Paul was mowing his yard on Nov. 3, 2017, at his home in Bowling Green when Boucher saw Paul stacking brush onto a pile near his property, according to court records.
> 
> Boucher "had enough," ran downhill toward Paul — who was wearing headphones and only noticed Boucher at the last second — and tackled him. A medical expert said the tackle is comparable to a chest trauma that would be seen in a 25-mile-per-hour car crash, according to a Jan. 11 court document filed by Paul's attorney.
> 
> Paul is suing for $4,000 in medical costs related to the attack but said the final amount "will continue to be updated through trial and will certainly include the hernia surgery that is currently scheduled to take place in Ontario, Canada."
> 
> A jury trial related to the case is scheduled for Jan. 28 in Bowling Green.


:bryanlol


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ul-neighbor-attack-canada-surgery/2569965002/
> 
> 
> 
> :bryanlol


So he is going to a private facility, as a private patient, paying privately, a facility that literally advertises for private patients globally who pay privately for procedures, and this somehow shows the bankruptcy of his anti-socialist beliefs? 

Where the majority of the facility's revenue comes from is irrelevant. The State is not paying for Paul's procedure. The State is not responsible for the facility's sterling level of care or its reputation. 

I'm not following the logic.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> So he is going to a private facility, as a private patient, paying privately, a facility that literally advertises for private patients globally who pay privately for procedures, and this somehow shows the bankruptcy of his anti-socialist beliefs?
> 
> Where the majority of the facility's revenue comes from is irrelevant. The State is not paying for Paul's procedure. The State is not responsible for the facility's sterling level of care or its reputation.
> 
> I'm not following the logic.


It shows the bankruptcy of his anti-Canadian healthcare system rhetoric to score virtue signalling points. Furthermore, he plans not to foot the bill as he is suing for medical costs. Rand Paul don't care about the costs when he isn't planning to the bills in the end. I guess that's one talking point he is getting right.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> It shows the bankruptcy of his anti-Canadian healthcare system rhetoric to score virtue signalling points. Furthermore, he plans not to foot the bill as he is suing for medical costs. Rand Paul don't care about the costs when he isn't planning to the bills in the end. I guess that's one talking point he is getting right.


His procedure will have precisely zero involvement from the Canadian government in any way, past the basic rules and regulations regarding safety and such that exist in the United States and every other country and have nothing to do with socialism or lack thereof. 

He is not responsible for his medical costs. He was assaulted and injured. He is entirely justified in seeking restitution from the man who assaulted and injured him. 

Literally nothing you said made even the slightest bit of sense. You tried to be a smartass and failed. It happens.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> His procedure will have precisely zero involvement from the Canadian government in any way, past the basic rules and regulations regarding safety and such that exist in the United States and every other country and have nothing to do with socialism or lack thereof.
> 
> He is not responsible for his medical costs. He was assaulted and injured. He is entirely justified in seeking restitution from the man who assaulted and injured him.
> 
> Literally nothing you said made even the slightest bit of sense. You tried to be a smartass and failed. It happens.


The hospital receives pretty significant amount of Ontario government funding. That system allows the hospital to also accept cash payments from rich people like Rand to help comply with lowering costs for other patients.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The hospital receives pretty significant amount of Ontario government funding. That system allows the hospital to also accept cash payments from rich people like Rand to help comply with lowering costs for other patients.


In what way does that "allow" the hospital to also accept private payments? It "allows" no such thing, of course. If the facility received no money from the Ontario provincial government, or the Canadian federal government, it would receive private payments for all its patients served, either directly from the patient, from another private individual, from charities, or from an insurance company. 

Or, if this facility could not maintain itself that way, there certainly would be other, better-managed facilities that could. Management does not seem to be an issue though, since it appears to be a quite popular provider for private patients from around the world.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> In what way does that "allow" the hospital to also accept private payments? It "allows" no such thing, of course. If the facility received no money from the Ontario provincial government, or the Canadian federal government, it would receive private payments for all its patients served, either directly from the patient, from another private individual, from charities, or from an insurance company.
> 
> Or, if this facility could not maintain itself that way, there certainly would be other, better-managed facilities that could. Management does not seem to be an issue though, since it appears to be a quite popular provider for private patients from around the world.


I meant the 'socialised' system work in that the rich that are willing to pay with cash subsidize the less well-off to lower costs for healthcare.

According to Rand Paul's past virtue signalling, he is supporting an institution that is complicit with slavery.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I saw the Rand Paul story earlier and laughed because I knew someone would post it here without bothering to investigate the facts behind it, which completely contradict the story itself. :lol FriedTofu takes the L.

Meanwhile Glenn Greenwald went on Tucker Carlson's show tonight to defend Tulsi Gabbard from recent attacks since announcing her candidacy and people on the left/fake left/whatever are NOT HAPPY. :lol How dare he leave the echo chamber! How dare he defend someone who is against endless war in Syria! :lol Looking forward to watching that interview later.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I am really surprised by people on the twitter/woke/establishment "left" who think attacking Gabbard on Foreign Policy stuff is the way to go. That said I think her Pence-like past views on Gay Marriage will bury her and her ducking out of debates last time she ran for office make me think she is a bit of a paper tiger who can't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## Draykorinee

ShiningStar said:


> I am really surprised by people on the twitter/woke/establishment "left" who think attacking Gabbard on Foreign Policy stuff is the way to go. That said I think her Pence-like past views on Gay Marriage will bury her and her ducking out of debates last time she ran for office make me think she is a bit of a paper tiger who can't stand up to scrutiny.


Modem Politics is bullshit, here's someone with a 100% voting record in favor of gay rights being demonized for old views held. 

Googling her name and homophobia gets you tons of main stream articles in the last 2 days. Hit pieces and nothing more.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Modem Politics is bullshit, here's someone with a 100% voting record in favor of gay rights being demonized for old views held.
> 
> Googling her name and homophobia gets you tons of main stream articles in the last 2 days. Hit pieces and nothing more.


Many of the same people attacking Tulsi for her past views are the same ones who defend Joy Ann Reid's story about hackers changing her blog posts on the wayback machine. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Oooh you guys are talking about Tulsi, seen the hit pieces and tweets saying she's dangerous etc. 

First Bernie, now Tulsi.. well golly gee I hope we get an honest candidate like Clinton or Harris running... Neither have had scandals or issues...


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Oooh you guys are talking about Tulsi, seen the hit pieces and tweets saying she's dangerous etc.
> 
> First Bernie, now Tulsi.. well golly gee I hope we get an honest candidate like Clinton or Harris running... Neither have had scandals or issues...


I've already seen them trying to use the racist sexist Bernie Bros argument to defend criticism of Kamala's record. And of course they're calling Tulsi either Assad's favorite Dem or Putin's puppet because they can't call her sexist or racist.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I've already seen them trying to use the racist sexist Bernie Bros argument to defend criticism of Kamala's record. And of course they're calling Tulsi either Assad's favorite Dem or Putin's puppet because they can't call her sexist or racist.


They'll find a way! As God is their witness, they will label Tulsi a racist!:laugh:


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Oooh you guys are talking about Tulsi, seen the hit pieces and tweets saying she's dangerous etc.
> 
> First Bernie, now Tulsi.. well golly gee I hope we get an honest candidate like Clinton or Harris running... Neither have had scandals or issues...



I suspect the 2020 race is gonna be even more brutal then the Republican race was in 2016. Even if the establishment want's Kamala and they have MSNBC and CNN in their pocket,the other establishment candidates ain't gonna just roll over they will come after her . Gillibrand,Booker,Hickleboring ,Fauxahontas,Klobauchar are gonna come for her wig since they want it to be their Yard too, who knows maybe 1 or 2 of them will even form an alliance behind the scenes to take Kamala down. And Uncle Joe will flop hard,he is gonna get hit hard from the Bernie/Tulsi wing and the Intersectional wing.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Modem Politics is bullshit, here's someone with a 100% voting record in favor of gay rights being demonized for old views held.
> 
> Googling her name and homophobia gets you tons of main stream articles in the last 2 days. Hit pieces and nothing more.


Not entirely true.
https://mauitime.com/news/politics/...pport-rep-tulsi-gabbards-reelection-campaign/
^This one came up and it's from 2016


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Not entirely true.
> https://mauitime.com/news/politics/...pport-rep-tulsi-gabbards-reelection-campaign/
> ^This one came up and it's from 2016


Okay pedant


----------



## Reaper

I didn't know this existed, but this is really fucking cool. 

538 is live-tracking every government decision right down to what's happening and who's voting for what. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/?ex_cid=irpromo










Nifty little database. 

Here's an interesting one: 










Of course Trump and the Republicans supports spying on people. There's no actual principles behind their "small government" rhetoric.

Was going through a Democrat's (some guy named Zoe Lofgren) voting history and apparently he's opposed trump 90% of the times. 

But guess what. 

He doesn't want Trump impeached. That tells me that the "opposition" wants Trump in power. Intentionally.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Kirsten Gillibrand announces her candidacy, and it's the most generic uninspiring shit you've ever read in your life. Click on the tweet to get the full string of empty platitudes. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085318564968521728


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Was going through a Democrat's (some guy named Zoe Lofgren) voting history and apparently he's opposed trump 90% of the times.
> 
> But guess what.
> 
> He doesn't want Trump impeached. That tells me that the "opposition" wants Trump in power. Intentionally.


Or it could be that he realizes impeaching Trump and getting Pence is a worse outcome.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Was going through a Democrat's (some guy named Zoe Lofgren) voting history and apparently he's opposed trump 90% of the times.
> 
> But guess what.
> 
> He doesn't want Trump impeached. That tells me that the "opposition" wants Trump in power. Intentionally.


It's a big, powerful club.

And we ain't in it.


----------



## Martins

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://youtu.be/z7bhWyIr0Ys?t=274

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-c...K-DB7_77UQlZV8qa89k0PGxbNfQtRJT7gTVbF2uT8NMzI

Man, I've been presented with so many Tulsi/Bernie hit pieces from liberal outlets already. I'm not even looking for them, they just pop straight up :lol I'd love to hatewatch a Colbert segment on it, but I'm pretty sure at this point his heart stops beating if he's not talking about Trump. John Oliver will probably go for it though, so people outside of the US can also eat up the same kind of propaganda while thinking they're so much smarter.

I mean fair play to you guys, it must be hard being anti-war in America. Can't say shit about not wanting to bomb the fuck out of some country at some time without being treated like a nutcase, associated with nazis or accused of being a Trumpist serving Russian interests.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Martins said:


> https://youtu.be/z7bhWyIr0Ys?t=274
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-c...K-DB7_77UQlZV8qa89k0PGxbNfQtRJT7gTVbF2uT8NMzI
> 
> Man, I've been presented with so many Tulsi/Bernie hit pieces from liberal outlets already. I'm not even looking for them, they just pop straight up :lol I'd love to hatewatch a Colbert segment on it, but I'm pretty sure at this point his heart stops beating if he's not talking about Trump. John Oliver will probably go for it though, so people outside of the US can also eat up the same kind of propaganda while thinking they're so much smarter.
> 
> I mean fair play to you guys, it must be hard being anti-war in America. Can't say shit about not wanting to bomb the fuck out of some country at some time without being treated like a nutcase, associated with nazis or accused of being a Trumpist serving Russian interests.


I think we should stop calling them liberals at this point and make the neo-conservative war-mongering bastids label stick.

America is the only country in the world where we've had only 1 president who was anti-war ... and guess what .. He's considered to be THE guy to blame for for "letting" 9/11 happen because he wasn't bombing the fuck out of the middle east already.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

People on the LEFT thinking that they are "liberals" is as funny as people on the RIGHT thinking they are "conservative". Labels don't mean shit. It's pretty window dressing though and gives the hoi polloi a reason to think they are better than anyone who doesn't think like they do.

Divide and Conquer as a strategy has always worked for those seeking power and dominance over others, whether through military conflict or just simple political maneuvering.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.rt.com/usa/448902-white-privilege-black-radio/



> CNN analyst and commentator Areva Martin was left scrambling for words after accusing Sirius XM radio host and Fox News commentator David Webb of “white privilege.” Webb is black.
> 
> In a live debate about job qualifications on Tuesday morning, Webb said that a candidate’s experience and qualifications matter more to him than their skin color. Martin disagreed, arguing that Webb had the “privilege of doing” certain things in his career that “people of color don’t have the privilege of doing.”
> 
> “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?” Webb asked Martin.
> 
> “David, by virtue of being a white male you have white privilege,” Martin explained.
> 
> “Areva,” Webb responded. “I hate to break it to you, but you should have been better prepped. I’m black. See, you went to ‘white privilege,’ this is the falsehood in this. You went with an assumption...that’s actually insulting.”
> 
> Martin tripped over her words, before apologizing to Webb for receiving “wrong information.”
> 
> That Martin had the ‘white privilege’ argument lined up comes as no surprise. While the term in its current meaning was thought up in university social sciences departments in the 1970s and 80s, Martin has helped thrust it into the mainstream, using it to frame her analysis of politics, social issues, and the Oscars.
> 
> While Martin has not been shy about identity politics, Webb has walked a different path. After a career as a rock radio DJ, Webb became involved in the Tea Party Republican movement around 2010 and began working for Fox in 2013. Since then, Webb has argued that the US is not systematically racist, and slammed African-American media and political figures who continue to focus on racial issues.
> 
> “They want to keep pounding the drumbeat from the 1960s,” he told Politico in 2013. “Can you imagine if there wasn’t the constant drumbeat of racism from Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP, Marc Morial at the National Urban League and others? They’d be out of business; they’d have to find another job.”
> 
> Martin’s foul-up was roundly mocked on Twitter.
> 
> “The problem with radio,” one commenter wrote, “is that ‘progressive’ racists can’t tell what color you are before they dismiss your expertise as ‘privilege.’”


:banderas


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I didn't know this existed, but this is really fucking cool.
> 
> 538 is live-tracking every government decision right down to what's happening and who's voting for what.
> 
> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/?ex_cid=irpromo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nifty little database.
> 
> Here's an interesting one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Trump and the Republicans supports spying on people. There's no actual principles behind their "small government" rhetoric.


I mentioned this when Trump legalized the illegal Obama Admin spying, the only reason it's not being talked about is because the entire Political Elite is on board, so as long as they want it's okay! :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Oof, pretty thorough takedown of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory in this Jimmy Dore interview:






EDIT: Opps, meant to put this in the Trump thread. Oh well. It's more about journalism and the Clintons anyway.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


>


Doesn't surprise me, I mean when I seen the names of the people involved with the first march I laughed, was like "Really? Doesn't anyone know who these people are?"

I like Tim Pool, he reminds me of Tater with his calling out fake Libs and actually standing up for the Left.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085571674559266816
She said she's gonna "run train" on the progressive agenda. :lmao :lmao :lmao 

AOC gonna give us so many great gaffes over the years to come.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085571674559266816
> She said she's gonna "run train" on the progressive agenda. :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> AOC gonna give us so many great gaffes over the years to come.


:lmao

I had to google that.

Hey if its a gangbang she's after I'm game.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Gotta love how you ignore the meaning she was referring to. Slang for working hard without any rest periods.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I don't agree with any of her politics and I'm not a "progressive," but she's a very attractive lady so I'll still take one for the team. Run that train on me, baby girl. Holler at your boy, AOC.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085571674559266816
> She said she's gonna "run train" on the progressive agenda. :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> AOC gonna give us so many great gaffes over the years to come.


So we either elect old, corrupt douchebags or young morons..... says a lot about the voters out there. Why the fuck did I ever waste time voting? Stupid is just too powerful.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






Rand Paul tries to pitch a sane foreign policy and gets screeched at by endless war neocon Brian Kilmeade who seems to believe the history of the world began on 9/11.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Rand Paul tries to pitch a sane foreign policy and gets screeched at by endless war neocon Brian Kilmeade who seems to believe the history of the world began on 9/11.


9/11 was a tragedy, but in 237 days it will have been 18 years. A kid on 9/12/2001 will be able to legally: join the military, get married, buy tobacco, fuck in every state, get a tattoo, etc. Were they still making arguments using Pearl Harbor 18 years later in 1959?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085929820507262977
this bitch cray


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085929820507262977
> this bitch cray


Like Spinal Tap getting lost on the way to the stage.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085977000983097345
Just remember, all the hit pieces on Tulsi are pure bullshit. They gave Clinton and Obama free passes for coming around on gay marriage much later in life than Tulsi did. Tulsi has a 100% pro-LGBTQIAXYZ+-*/% voting record. This angle of attack is a total farce by corporate dems who want to install an Obama-like pro-establishment president who will serve the interests of their corporate masters and especially the military-industrial complex. That is why they continue to push the corporatist ACA and shriek like banshees at any suggestion of withdrawing from any one of the senseless, endless wars we're involved in.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://edmontonsun.com/news/local-news/uqam-co-op-excludes-white-comedian-from-show-because-of-his-dreadlocks/wcm/606d6d85-848a-456e-836d-1b76df37d7ce



> *University excludes white comedian because of his dreadlocks*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new controversy over cultural appropriation has arisen in Montreal, resulting this time in a white comedian being barred from two comedy shows because he has dreadlocks, a hairstyle associated with black culture.
> 
> The Coop les Récoltes is a bar but also a solidarity co-operative created by the Université du Québec à Montréal’s Groupe de recherches d’intérêt public, a collective that deals with social and environmental issues.
> 
> The establishment confirmed its decision to exclude comedian Zach Poitras in a message posted on its Facebook page.
> 
> *Poitras was barred from performing at the Snowflake Comedy Club* and the Soirée d’humour engagée. He refused to comment on the decision.
> 
> In its online explanation, the co-operative defended its mission to be “a safe space, free from any link to oppression,” and described cultural appropriation as a form of violence.
> 
> “We will not tolerate any discrimination or harassment within our spaces,” they wrote. The group argues that cultural appropriation is when “a person from a dominant culture appropriates the symbols, clothing or even the hairstyles of persons from a historically dominated culture.”
> 
> The group contends that white people can wear dreadlocks because of their privilege, while a black person “would see themselves refused access to job opportunities or to spaces (housing, schools contests, sporting events, etc.).”
> 
> The posting says the co-op understands that Poitras’s intention isn’t racist, but adds the hairstyle “conveys racism,” adding that “cultural appropriation is not a debate or an opinion,” but rather “a form of passive oppression, a deconstructive privilege and, above all, a manifestation of ordinary racism.”
> 
> Greg Robinson, a UQAM professor specializing in black history, compared the situation to a larger interpretation of the concept of “black face,” which saw white performers darken their faces to portray black people.
> 
> “White people would dress as black people to mock them,” he said. But Robinson added that even when the intention wasn’t to mock but rather embrace or immerse one’s self in a culture, it’s still necessary to be careful.
> 
> “It’s like the N-word — black people can use it in their community, but when someone from outside uses it, even if they want to be like black people, there still remains an aspect that is rooted in history.”
> 
> The Coop Les Récoltes did not reply to requests for an interview.


O.K... so yeah... the universe might be a simulation after all.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://edmontonsun.com/news/local-news/uqam-co-op-excludes-white-comedian-from-show-because-of-his-dreadlocks/wcm/606d6d85-848a-456e-836d-1b76df37d7ce
> 
> 
> 
> O.K... so yeah... the universe might be a simulation after all.


OH NO!

White people are wearing a hair style that every ethnicity and culture have worn since the dawn of time!!!

Someone please think of the chil- black people! 

Oh my God, will the "Think of the children" trope ever end with these types of people? :laugh:


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://edmontonsun.com/news/local-news/uqam-co-op-excludes-white-comedian-from-show-because-of-his-dreadlocks/wcm/606d6d85-848a-456e-836d-1b76df37d7ce
> 
> 
> 
> O.K... so yeah... the universe might be a simulation after all.


These people are fucking retarded. And not just a little racist. They are especially retarded because they have no earthly idea that what they are doing is racist. The entire concept of cultural appropriation is racist. You don't look like the other people who do this, so you don't get to do it. These fucktards are judging someone by their skin color. Black man with dreads, you get to perform but white man with dreads, you do not... that's fucking racist. How these people even exist is beyond me. Anyone that stupid should have given himself a brain aneurysm trying to tie his shoes long ago. 

This is why we need to stop putting warning labels on stuff. Let Darwin take care of these fools.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> These people are fucking retarded. And not just a little racist. They are especially retarded because they have no earthly idea that what they are doing is racist. The entire concept of cultural appropriation is racist. You don't look like the other people who do this, so you don't get to do it. These fucktards are judging someone by their skin color. Black man with dreads, you get to perform but white man with dreads, you do not... that's fucking racist. How these people even exist is beyond me. Anyone that stupid should have given himself a brain aneurysm trying to tie his shoes long ago.
> 
> This is why we need to stop putting warning labels on stuff. Let Darwin take care of these fools.


I am guilty of cultural appropriation every time I wear a suit to work. :ghost


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I am guilty of cultural appropriation every time I wear a suit to work. :ghost


I am guilty of cultural appropriation every time I say aloha and eat poke.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


>


People finally calling out that fake Shaun King? Wow, shocking! He's always been a scammer, he's just a conman profiting off tragedies and race baiting. I wonder if he is going to pay that 100k reward money he promised just recently? Probably not.



Tater said:


> These people are fucking retarded. And not just a little racist. They are especially retarded because they have no earthly idea that what they are doing is racist. The entire concept of cultural appropriation is racist. You don't look like the other people who do this, so you don't get to do it. These fucktards are judging someone by their skin color. Black man with dreads, you get to perform but white man with dreads, you do not... that's fucking racist. How these people even exist is beyond me. Anyone that stupid should have given himself a brain aneurysm trying to tie his shoes long ago.
> 
> This is why we need to stop putting warning labels on stuff. Let Darwin take care of these fools.


When I work in the ER sometimes I think it was God's intention that stupid people die and I'm without knowing doing bad! :laugh: These people are the biggest idiots around. If they want to get upset about something, get upset about the fake black man making money off black issues. Not some random guy for having dreads. :serious:


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Like Spinal Tap getting lost on the way to the stage.




:lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Hey @virus21, you think you could stop treating this like your own personal FB timeline and start adding relevant comments when you want to post a vid? I think I speak for most everyone here when I say we're getting kinda tired of you spamming. There ain't a damned thing wrong with posting vids... but at least add some commentary to it when you do. We all know how to use YT. If you're not adding anything to the conversation, then you're just spamming.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Hey @virus21, you think you could stop treating this like your own personal FB timeline and start adding relevant comments when you want to post a vid? I think I speak for most everyone here when I say we're getting kinda tired of you spamming. There ain't a damned thing wrong with posting vids... but at least add some commentary to it when you do. We all know how to use YT. If you're not adding anything to the conversation, then you're just spamming.


My apologies. I generally let what I post speak for itself, but I can give my two cents to what I post in future.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> My apologies. I generally let what I post speak for itself, but I can give my two cents to what I post in future.


That would be appreciated. Thank you.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> My apologies. I generally let what I post speak for itself, but I can give my two cents to what I post in future.


You have good thoughts when you do speak up so here's some more encouragement if you need any.


----------



## virus21

What an Ouroboros these people are. Shocked that the NY Times did this.





Well this isn't a surprise. These people have been scum for a while.





4
Holy Shit! The Women's March is crashing and burning. Its entertaining.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Why are you against womens march?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why are you against womens march?


i have an even better idea, the men's march.

the rallying cause? the commonality of everyone involved? being a man, nothing else.

no goal, no clear mission and no practical demands. just a rallying cry and a place for lonely and angry men to feel like they're apart of something.

live speakers: ted nugent, james woods and ben shapiro. they will talk about toxic feminism and why men all over the world should unite and vote against democrats.

hats will be given out in the shape of a penis.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The women's march is centered around shielding women from social and moral responsibility (abortion) and justifying their emotional opposition to the election of their president, President Donald J. Trump. (He's their president)


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The march was nothing more that a joke and did more to hurt the cause of women than helping by making a ridiculous spectacle about it. And now, we find out the leadership is filled with anti-Semites


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why are you against womens march?


Several "organizers" are anti-semites and have known links to Islamist extremism. 

While there are reasons to be against the militaristic approach of the "allies" and Israel, these people who are on the side of the muslim extremists are the other side of this insane 1500 year old tribalism.

Leaving nothing but a trail of bodies everywhere.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086086919610556416
:vince2


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Hey look I found a reason to vote for Kamala Harris

Now if only I hadn't already found 3,247 reasons not to :draper2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

But I thought people only lined up to beg for food in communist countries.


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I don't know how these people are not more mad. I once had a mistake with HR fucking up my paycheck and that meant I had to wait a week to get some of my pay. Now it was lucky for me that I have a decent amount of savings and don't have kids so I could cope without the money if I had to. Most of these people however have kids or bills that need to be paid now or healthcare. It is a fucking disgrace.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Roy Mustang said:


> I don't know how these people are not more mad. I once had a mistake with HR fucking up my paycheck and that meant I had to wait a week to get some of my pay. Now it was lucky for me that I have a decent amount of savings and don't have kids so I could cope without the money if I had to. Most of these people however have kids or bills that need to be paid now or healthcare. It is a fucking disgrace.


They're protesting here and there, but the MSM has intentionally shifted its primary focus to the Russia crap.

Secondly, people are donating money to these federal workers and absolving the government of its crime.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> They're protesting here and there, but the MSM has intentionally shifted its primary focus to the Russia crap.
> 
> Secondly, people are donating money to these federal workers and absolving the government of its crime.


Like good little drones do


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Like good little drones do


Yup. This headline from Business Insider says everything you need to know about how they keep the drones in line:

https://www.businessinsider.com/gov...-gives-groceries-to-government-workers-2019-1

Instead of talking about the problem with a government shutdown, they become basically a Press Release outlet for Kraft's PR department


----------



## 2 Ton 21

From my neck of the woods.

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/lawmaker-who-defended-klan-named-house-post-eve-king-day/rds6eNbTHlQW2y9so9QTFI/



> *Ga. lawmaker who defended Klan named to House post on eve of King Day*
> 
> House Speaker David Ralston Friday named as one of his committee chairs a state representative who opposed the erection of a statue to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on the grounds of the State Capitol and said the Ku Klux Klan made “people straighten up.”
> 
> Rep. Tommy Benton, R-Jefferson, will chair the House Retirement Committee, which oversees the retirement funds for Georgia teachers and state employees.
> 
> “The speaker’s philosophy is that people deserve a second chance and that’s what he has given Chairman Benton,” said House spokesman Kaleb McMichen. Benton did not respond to requests for comment.
> 
> The announcement of Benton as chairman of the House Retirement Committee comes as the state prepares to observe the 90th anniversary of King’s birth on Monday.
> 
> *Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, stripped Benton of his chairmanship of the Human Relations and Aging Committee in June 2017 after Benton distributed an article to his House colleagues titled “The Absurdity of Slavery as the Cause of the War Between the States.” Ralston also removed Benton from a civics education study committee, despite having just named him to it.
> 
> The article was just one in a string of provocative comments or legislative proposals from the retired high school history teacher from Jackson County, 60 miles northeast of Atlanta. In 2016, Benton drew national condemnation for claiming the Klan “was not so much a racist thing, but a vigilante thing to keep law and order.”
> 
> “It made a lot of people straighten up,” he told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “I’m not saying what they did was right. It’s just the way things were.”
> *
> Charles Steele, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was distressed to hear Ralston had returned Benton to a leadership position.
> 
> “It’s a shame that we reward that type of mentality in today’s society, especially at the state level,” he said. “We have a problem with that and we are going to deal with it.”
> *
> The SCLC is part of a coalition of civil rights groups pushing to change state law that prohibits removing or altering Confederate monuments. Benton has been a fierce defender of those monuments. In March 2017, he called a press conference to push for passage of a resolution requiring the state to recognize Confederate Memorial Day as an official holiday.
> 
> The resolution referred to the Southern states’ role in the Civil War as a “four-year struggle for states’ rights, individual freedom, and local governmental control” — but made no mention of slavery.
> *
> *In 2016, he introduced legislation calling for a constitutional amendment protecting Stone Mountain as a Confederate memorial and another bill would require street names to revert to their names prior 1968, the year of King’s assassination. The bill didn’t mention King by name but the effect would have been to rename a portion of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Atlanta as Gordon Road, in honor of Confederate Gen. John B. Gordon, an early leader of the Georgia Klan.
> 
> Benton also made a point of saying he did not want his name included on a plaque with other lawmakers as part of the King statue at the Capitol. He had opposed erecting the statue at the Capitol, saying the statehouse grounds were reserved to memorialize elected officials only.
> 
> When asked if Benton had repudiated his earlier positions, McMichen declined to comment. However, the fact that the appointment would be controversial did not come as a surprise.
> *
> “I was shocked it took you as long to call as it did,” McMichen told an AJC reporter Friday.
> 
> Because he was stripped of his committee chairmanship when the General Assembly was not in session, Benton sat out of House leadership for just one legislative year. His new role as chair of the retirement committee arguably is a promotion, since that committee oversees large financial funds and has more legislation assigned to it.
> 
> Ralston has never publicly criticized Benton by name, and apart from the temporary demotion from House leadership, the controversies have had little impact on the seven-term legislator from Jackson County. Benton handily defeated his opponent in the Republican primary last year and was unopposed in the general election.
> 
> The announcement comes as Atlanta prepares to observe what would have been King’s 90th birthday. McMichen said the timing of Benton’s appointment was unrelated to the annual holiday.
> 
> “The (state) constitution dictates when we have to come into session. Dr. King was born on a certain date and the two happen to come within a week of each other on the calendar and we always announce committee assignments at the end of the first week of session,” McMichen said. “That’s where we are.”
> 
> Our reporting
> 
> State Rep. Tommy Benton, R-Jefferson, was stripped of a committee assignment in 2017 after he distributed to House colleagues in 2017 entitled, “The Absurdity of Slavery as the Cause of the War Between the States.” The AJC had previously reported on Benton’s statements about the Ku Klux Klan, the Confederacy and Southern history that many called racist.




















Another comment of his about the Klan.



> “A great majority of prominent men in the South were members of the Klan," he continued. "Should that affect their reputation to the extent that everything else good that they did was forgotten?”


and



> Benton, a retired middle school history teacher, said he equates Confederate leaders with the American revolutionaries of the 18th century — fighting a tyrannical government for political independence.
> 
> “The war was not fought over slavery,” he said. Those who disagree “can believe what they want to,” he said.





Reaper said:


> They're protesting here and there, but the MSM has intentionally shifted its primary focus to the Russia crap.
> 
> Secondly, people are donating money to these federal workers and absolving the government of its crime.





Reaper said:


> Yup. This headline from Business Insider says everything you need to know about how they keep the drones in line:
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/gov...-gives-groceries-to-government-workers-2019-1
> 
> Instead of talking about the problem with a government shutdown, they become basically a Press Release outlet for Kraft's PR department


Reminds me of a problem I had recently at work. There was a very necessary machine that was pretty important to our day to day business. It broke down. It's old and needs to be replaced, but the bosses just keep having it fixed and they only fix it when it's been broken for days and we can't find anymore workarounds.

I'm of the opinion that I and my co-workers should stop doing workarounds to force the issue since it's become such burden on productivity, but my co-workers think they should just keep the status quo to keep the peace.

Simply put, if you give them a way out of doing what needs to be done, they will always take it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

"There were reputable people gassing Jews just because they gassed a few Jews doesn't mean they we're bad people to the people they we're good to?"

The future of this country is distressing.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





CNN is never held to the standards they scream that everyone else should have and its bullshit


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

FFS he didn't say a racial slur, that youtube is a fucking clown.

he said kype then corrected it to type.

I bet this clown was also one of the people who claimed Grover said fucking on sesame street. If anyone is an anti-semitic his him for hearing that.

That youtuber is Alex Jones level bad based on all the BS you have posted from him.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> FFS he didn't say a racial slur, that youtube is a fucking clown.
> 
> he said kype then corrected it to type.
> 
> I bet this clown was also one of the people who claimed Grover said fucking on sesame street. If anyone is an anti-semitic his him for hearing that.
> 
> That youtuber is Alex Jones level bad based on all the BS you have posted from him.


I agree that the guy on CNN only butchered the word type and didn't say a slur, but if you listen to that audio on Grover he clearly says fucking. :beckylol

Like I don't even care if he did or didn't, but like I couldn't not hear it even when I was told what to listen for.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> That youtuber is Alex Jones level bad based on all the BS you have posted from him.


Tim Pool is a discount Dave Rubin who likes to believe that they're in the center and that they're just providing a platform to some of the worst extremists. 

Pool unfortunately tried to be objective, but he eventually found himself not being able to decide how far to go and got caught up in something he may not have originally intended to get caught up in.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Tim Pool is a discount Dave Rubin who likes to believe that they're in the center and that they're just providing a platform to some of the worst extremists.
> 
> Pool unfortunately tried to be objective, but he eventually found himself not being able to decide how far to go and got caught up in something he may not have originally intended to get caught up in.


But isn't that pretty much everyone who does political commentary who isn't a fringe loon?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> But isn't that pretty much everyone who does political commentary who isn't a fringe loon?


TBF. I'm not _really _criticizing Tim Pool here, but at the same time I don't think to have integrity you have to give a platform to individuals with extreme views or that you have any kind of moral obligation to to go so far towards an extreme that in essence you over-look your objectivity in the process. 

Pool while tries (or once tried) very hard to bring us a kind of POV that others were ignoring, eventually found himself (imo) searching for "truth" where there are nothing but lies so his own lack of attention to detail is his biggest flaw. 

Dave Rubin on the other hand is pretty much an easy parody at this point. 

Contrapoints did a great job of making fun of him in one of her videos. It's worth the watch.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Dave Rubin is whatever people pay him to be.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

What Tim does is critique modern journalism, but without the on the street reporting it's basically a giant game of telephone. All you have is the articles to go on and no real facts, nor is he doing follow up (reporting), at least that I can see. However, I do appreciate the attempt to be reasonable in his commentary.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

He's definitely a step above the MSM propaganda machine which is currently engaged in brainwashing the rubes into believing lies about marginal taxation. 










So no. AOC is not proposing a flat 70% tax rate but 70% after every 10 million already earned in a year.


----------



## Martins

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So, apparently Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson are really set to have a public debate sometime this year and this is pretty much the apex of weird Internet political culture :lmao

I kinda do want to see this, but if it actually does happen, it really doesn't sound like it'll be anything too exciting. They'll probably agree on a lot of stuff about political correctness, but if it actually starts to go into "cultural marxism" or whatever I'm not even sure Zizek will bother to dissect all the woefully wrong things Peterson has to say on the matter. Peterson doesn't need a debate to understand Marxism, he needs special ed.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Martins said:


> So, apparently Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson are really set to have a public debate sometime this year and this is pretty much the apex of weird Internet political culture :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda do want to see this, but if it actually does happen, it really doesn't sound like it'll be anything too exciting. They'll probably agree on a lot of stuff about political correctness, but if it actually starts to go into "cultural marxism" or whatever I'm not even sure Zizek will bother to dissect all the woefully wrong things Peterson has to say on the matter. Peterson doesn't need a debate to understand Marxism, he needs special ed.


Peterson is Alex Jones when it comes to talking about Postmodernism and cultural Marxism. 

It was actually his bullshit that first encouraged me to go back and brush up on both Postmodernism and Marxism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> He's definitely a step above the MSM propaganda machine which is currently engaged in brainwashing the rubes into believing lies about marginal taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no. AOC is not proposing a flat 70% tax rate but 70% after every 10 million already earned in a year.


Isn't everyone brainwashing the rubes into believing lies about marginal taxation? I have seen MSM , CNN, Fox etc, all doing it.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I hope we're not suggesting that Marxism is in any way attainable.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Marxism is the special ed kid of history, it's so retarded that people feel bad for it and keep giving it another chance no matter how many times it shits countries in the sink


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It's not entirely baseless either.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

americans never paid a 73%, 90%, or 69% tax rate, marginal or otherwise.

the number of deductions and loopholes was much larger in those times compared to today. 

this is why tax revenues have stayed steady at about 20% of GDP despite tax rates generally being lowered. rates were lowered but deductions and loopholes were ended. 

the actual tax rate paid by those in the 90% bracket ranged from 40% to 17% thanks to all the ways they had available to avoid their income being classified as taxable

this was the case for the entirety of the 20th century until reagan's tax reform that set the top rate at just under 40% and eliminated nearly all the ways that were previously available to stash income that wasn't taxable under the law


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Isn't everyone brainwashing the rubes into believing lies about marginal taxation? I have seen MSM , CNN, Fox etc, all doing it.


Welcome to the light. 

Of course the MSM wants people to believe falsehoods about marginal taxation.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

continuing along, the share of total income tax revenue coming from the top bracket has increased to the point where today the top bracket pays more than 70%* of the total income tax revenue, whereas in the 1980 the top bracket paid 55% of the total income tax revenue, and even less in the 1950s. the top 1% went from paying slightly under 15% to paying slightly over 30% in the same 40 year period. 

tax payment inequality is quite marked in the united states with 20% of the population paying almost 75%* of the income tax and 1% paying over 30% but still you get people saying the rich don't pay their fair share.

*some analyses put it at more than 90%


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> continuing along, the share of total income tax revenue coming from the top bracket has increased to the point where today the top bracket pays more than 70%* of the total income tax revenue, whereas in the 1980 the top bracket paid 55% of the total income tax revenue, and even less in the 1950s. the top 1% went from paying slightly under 15% to paying slightly over 30% in the same 40 year period.
> 
> tax payment inequality is quite marked in the united states with 20% of the population paying almost 75%* of the income tax and 1% paying over 30% but still you get people saying the rich don't pay their fair share.
> 
> *some analyses put it at more than 90%


Cite your sources. 

You have a bad habit of dropping facts that you've read somewhere but never the sources to back yourself up so that your sources can be cross examined.

I'm not saying you're wrong so don't respond with your panties in a bunch like usual. Don't misunderstand my intention of questioning you.

The one flaw I can already see in your argument is that paying 90% of the overall taxes collected is not the same as paying 90% as the highest marginal rate on a certain income earned.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086796139817504768


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1086796139817504768


doesn't matter, they've already been accused and convicted of thoughtcrime and will now be punished for it 

that's current year


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I don't see anything wrong on _either_ side, but it is fascinating to see the typical propagandists on both sides screaming "PERSECUTION" at this.

It's interesting that the pro-ethnics are screaming persecution, and some white boys are screaming persecution. 

love the oppression olympics though. I suppose feeling persecuted gives people some sort of an identity.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> doesn't matter, they've already been accused and convicted of thoughtcrime and will now be punished for it
> 
> that's current year


People are talking about how much they want to punch the kid who the camera eventually goes right up but he's the only one who literally never moved or said anything. He's just standing there smiling as this absurd event unfolds inches from his face. For that, he must be doxed and harassed and we should all fantasize about beating him up.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

 

"Doxxing" a guy who is at a public protest, part of a group screaming "build the wall" at an Native American. He's not doing anything. But yeah, that shit grin is "nothing" these days. Oh well. We shouldn't look to deep into that. No way. We should just ignore everything no matter what it implies .. Since nothing was said it doesn't matter. 

I don't care if he gets doxed or not. Not my concern. He's silent. Doesn't matter. Demeanor and body language matters. We're evolved creatures. This kid thinks that his 4chan trolling will come across as "innocent" IRL. But maybe he should've had stayed home today. 

But. Actions have consequences. Whether they are well intentioned or not. Only a fool in this day and age would think that they do not. Whether you're a good person or not. Probably a good idea to not put yourself intentionally in a situation like this. 

But. 

"Mama, why can't I be an idiot and not face any consequences for my actions"? 

"Baby, it's because actions don't have consequences. Here, suck on my titties".

Trump and his fellow idiots having such a positive impact on boys today. I guess that's the kind of mentoring they need.

I mean, personal responsibility right. But I think that only applies to poor people.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I haven't seen all the videos no doubt and the ones I have seen viewed separately or together don't show the entirety of what happened. 

The kids in the front didn't do anything wrong I could see, they stand there quietly and looking rather nervous while this guy bangs a drum in their face and sneers at them. I didn't hear him verbally insulting them but he is being kind of an asshole for sure

Kids in the second row and further back start up a Florida State / Atlanta Braves war chant "Truuuuuhhh, uhhh uhhh-uhhh-ump" which is also assholeish but is pretty mild as far as being an asshole at a protest goes 

Honestly none of the assholery on display from either side is anything to care about to me :draper2


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.azmirror.com/2019/01/18/lawmaker-wants-to-tax-porn-users-to-help-fund-the-border-wall/



> *Lawmaker wants to tax porn users to help fund the border wall*
> 
> A GOP lawmaker has a novel idea for how a border wall with Mexico should be funded: Force every Arizonan who wants to access pornographic material on an electronic device to pay $20.
> 
> Republican Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, has introduced House Bill 2444, which would make “distributors” of devices that allow access to the internet install software to make the offending material not viewable. To remove the blocking software, a person would have to pay the state $20.
> 
> Those distributors, which include both manufacturers and retailers, would also be able to impose their own fees for removing the blocker.
> 
> “It’s pretty clearly unconstitutional,” said Mike Stabile, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition. The Free Speech Coalition is a non-profit that lobbies on behalf of the adult entertainment industry.
> 
> The bill is not something new to the adult entertainment industry, but “the border wall twist is new,” Stabile said.
> 
> Similar bills have been proposed in recent years in Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Utah, Rhode Island and South Carolina.
> 
> The bill also appears to be connected to a prominent anti-gay activist who is most famously known for attempting to marry his computer in protest over gay marriage.
> 
> Griffin was not available to comment on HB2444.
> 
> *Porn tax for border security*
> *
> The bill proposed by Griffin is similar to other legislation proposed elsewhere, in that all computers and other devices that can access the internet, like tablets and mobile phones, sold in Arizona would have mandatory blocker software pre-installed.
> 
> Any distributor who fails to do so would be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
> 
> Arizonans who wished to access pornographic material online would have to make a request to do so, prove they are at least 18 years old, acknowledge they understand that removing the blocking software will expose them to obscene material and pay a one-time $20 fee to the State of Arizona, plus whatever fee the company who installed the blocker requires.*
> 
> The $20 fee, which would go to the Arizona Commerce Authority, could be changed on an annual basis by the agency’s leader.
> 
> All money collected by the state to allow electronic devices to access pornography would be deposited in the John McCain Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Fund, which the bill creates. The Commerce Authority, in conjunction with the director of the Department of Public Safety, would give grants out of the fund “to uphold community standards of decency” and “developing, expanding or strengthening programs for victims of sex abuse.”
> 
> At the top of the list of 10 explicit things the grants can be used for is “build a border wall between Mexico and this state or fund border security.”
> 
> Other grant purposes include mental health services, temporary housing, assisting victims, training, assisting school districts and assisting law enforcement.
> 
> It is unclear if the McCain family is supportive of the legislation or a fund created in the late senator’s name.
> 
> In addition to the blocking mechanism, the bill would also allow any private citizen or the attorney general to sue a company that fails to block a website’s material after it has been notified of the offending material.
> 
> “This is the first we’ve seen this legislation or heard of this concept,” Ryan Anderson, a spokesman for Attorney General Mark Brnovich, told Arizona Mirror.
> 
> *“He’s a bit of a jokester”*
> 
> The bill appears to be linked to a man named Chris Sevier, who has been behind similar measures and runs a website named “Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act,” which is also the short title of Griffin’s HB2444.
> 
> Last year, Sevier was issued a cease and desist by Elizabeth Smart, whose name he had been using on similar legislation in Rhode Island.
> 
> In 2017, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, a group that advocates against pornography, demanded Sevier quit claiming the organization supported his work, according to the Associated Press.
> 
> Sevier’s most prominent and famous incident came in 2013, when he attempted to sue Apple claiming that his MacBook was responsible for his porn addiction.
> 
> In 2017, Sevier sued the state of Utah for not recognizing his marriage to his laptop in an attempt to undermine gay marriage. His suit, which also demanded a Colorado baker make his electronic bride a wedding cake, was thrown out.
> 
> “He’s been doing this all across the country,” Stabile said, adding that “he’s a bit of a jokester.”
> 
> At least 18 states have seen some form of Sevier’s bill appear, all of which have been shot down.


Obviously won't pass, but I'm wondering if she really thinks if it did, that there aren't a shitload of workarounds besides paying the $20.



> Gail Griffin
> Arizona State Senator
> Born: September 1934 (*age 84 years*)


Ah... O.K., that explains it.

Hope she has a friend like this.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

No wonder America and Saudi Arabia get along so well.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.azmirror.com/2019/01/18/lawmaker-wants-to-tax-porn-users-to-help-fund-the-border-wall/
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously won't pass, but I'm wondering if she really thinks if it did, that there aren't a shitload of workarounds besides paying the $20.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah... O.K., that explains it.
> 
> Hope she has a friend like this.


Porn should be taxed heavily, it would cut down the amount of shitty porn :lol

It's sad that 100% amateur porn recorded on a cellphone in a darkened bedroom where you can barely see anything is superior to most of the porn produced "professionally" today


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Pay for porn? Does she not realize what year it is? :heston


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Pay for porn perverts!

Isn't there some legislation where they'll require people to put in their ID to view porn?

A flat 70% tax is perfectly reasonable, after all think of the children and the poor people we can help!



Reaper said:


> TBF. I'm not _really _criticizing Tim Pool here, but at the same time I don't think to have integrity you have to give a platform to individuals with extreme views or that you have any kind of moral obligation to to go so far towards an extreme that in essence you over-look your objectivity in the process.
> 
> Pool while tries (or once tried) very hard to bring us a kind of POV that others were ignoring, eventually found himself (imo) searching for "truth" where there are nothing but lies so his own lack of attention to detail is his biggest flaw.
> 
> Dave Rubin on the other hand is pretty much an easy parody at this point.
> 
> Contrapoints did a great job of making fun of him in one of her videos. It's worth the watch.


Contra is guilty of biased leaning and being quite vague at time with facts. 

She's better than most and tends to use justification tactics less than others. Compared to others in her circle she's probably one of the best while the others are Lefty PJW tier sans the humor.

But if we're being honest if people used facts and solely facts for debates and topics, it would come more to a centrist viewpoint than skewing to either Left or Right on most things.

It's why I stopped looking at Political YouTube videos for the most part, I'll look at reactionary stuff like what Tim Pool talks about because what he points out is pretty funny.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So it's clear from many different angles that the kid was just standing there minding his own business and the native walked up into the kid's personal space instead of the other way around. From different angles it looks like the kid was nervous and not shitfaced. Like a deer caught in headlights. He had no clue what was happening to him. 

So the native manufactured the controversy.

My point about avoiding political rallies at young ages still stands though. These kids were either dragged there by their parents or went there themselves and had no business making an appearance where something like this could happen to them. 

Need better parenting.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

the left's new hero, this guy will be everywhere soon enough. 




"this land was never supposed to have a wall"... yes excellent point. i'm sure your conquered ancestors felt the same way.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> the left's new hero, this guy will be everywhere soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "this land was never supposed to have a wall"... yes excellent point. i'm sure your conquered ancestors felt the same way.


I'm supposedly "the left" boogeyman. And he's not my hero. It's obvious what he did was shitty and most of the leftists I know have come to this same conclusion. It's all over my twitter - left and right - both seeing what this guy was doing and did to the kid. 

Up your game. I've tried to reason with you several times. A lot of this "left" bullshit isn't even the left that exists in the majority that you seem to propagate that it does. 

Though I doubt that even if 9 out of 10 "leftists" denounced this guy, you'll change your mind. The "left" boogeyman is so scary.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I'm supposedly "the left" boogeyman. And he's not my hero. It's obvious what he did was shitty and most of the leftists I know have come to this same conclusion. It's all over my twitter - left and right - both seeing what this guy was doing and did to the kid.
> 
> Up your game. I've tried to reason with you several times. A lot of this "left" bullshit isn't even the left that exists in the majority that you seem to propagate that it does.
> 
> Though I doubt that even if 9 out of 10 "leftists" denounced this guy, you'll change your mind. The "left" boogeyman is so scary.


jesus can you relax? i was talking about the mainstream news and media in general, not every single person that identifies as a lefty.

the big outlets are already writing the narrative and having the hollywood celebs weigh in. this guy is being propped on a pedestal. he IS going to be made into a hero and a symbol whether you like or not.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> jesus can you relax? i was talking about the mainstream news and media in general, not every single person that identifies as a lefty.
> 
> the big outlets are already writing the narrative and having the hollywood celebs weigh in. this guy is being propped on a pedestal. he IS going to be made into a hero and a symbol whether you like or not.


Nah. Just tired of the constant "left" "right" trolling that goes on here. 

It's kinda weird that every single time you guys get told to simmer YOUR rhetoric down that you can't even see your own "rightist" version of YOUR rhetoric, but want to constantly berate the "left". 

It's getting tiresome at this point.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Nah. Just tired of the constant "left" "right" trolling that goes on here.
> 
> It's kinda weird that every single time you guys get told to simmer YOUR rhetoric down that you can't even see your own "rightist" version of YOUR rhetoric, but want to constantly berate the "left".
> 
> It's getting tiresome at this point.


of course there are right wing trolls and right wing sheep, wtf is your point?

do you even disagree with anything i've said or are you just upset that i lumped a group of people together as 'the left'? had i framed it as 'CNN' or 'MSNBC' or 'Hollywood'... would your panties still have gotten in a bunch?

everyone reacting to this story and taken the elderly man's side is (surprise) a lefty. it is the single most common thread among them.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> of course there are right wing trolls and right wing sheep, wtf is your point?


That you're one of them.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> That you're one of them.


lmao please. you have nothing to say so you resort to this BS. just yesterday in the trump thread, which you frequent pretty often, i demonized right wing media.

i made a broad blanket statement about 'the left' and you got upset. it's that simple. you have no point to make.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> i made a broad blanket statement about 'the left' and you got upset. it's that simple. you have no point to make.


Keen eye for seeing what's happening here. At least you are aware of what's going on. That is the point I'm making. 

Blanket statements are a hallmark of trolls ergo my assertion is accurate unless you stop being one.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Keen eye for seeing what's happening here. At least you are aware of what's going on. That is the point I'm making.
> 
> Blanket statements are a hallmark of trolls ergo my assertion is accurate unless you stop being one.


fine... mr. native american man is _*CNN's*_ and the _*anti-trump's brigade's*_ new hero.

there is your generalization-free assessment.






this is just the beginning though. he's still got 14 minutes and the anti-trumpers (a.k.a. 90% of mainstream media) will be happy to give it to him.

can't wait to see which woke celebrities take a selfie with him first.


----------



## El Grappleador

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

It seems gas theft or "Huachicoleo" had serious consequences.



> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH3RQOOq8fY


Poor "Huachicoleros", does it worth it risk their lives for a gas plastic drum? It's ridiculous. They're affecting everyone. It's a matter of common sense playing with gas ends up get burnt. So like that not.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





Yep, don't oppose Nancy "Boss Tweed" Pelosi


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> lmao please. you have nothing to say so you resort to this BS. just yesterday in the trump thread, which you frequent pretty often, i demonized right wing media.
> 
> i made a broad blanket statement about 'the left' and you got upset. it's that simple. you have no point to make.


dont you realize that you have been called a troll, sir, by the individual who calls everyone that gets his dander up a troll, and as such are in a state of being completely destroyed

there is no coming back from being called a troll by the individual who calls literally everyone that gets his dander up a troll :no:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

No comments necessary.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Doctors shouldn't over-prescribe anything, but I will say addicts are addicts. Not because they are prescribed anything. If you don't take more than you were supposed to, you should be fine.

It honestly scares me how much opioids are vilified right now because while addiction to them is a problem, they are necessary if you need them. I have recurring kidney issues that require me to be on them when they flare up again every few years and I could not get through it without them, but I've never been addicted. I use what's prescribed to me, use the dosage I'm told to and stop using them when I no longer need them. People need to be more reasonable when prescribed medication. I know every time I get a prescription I'm told not to abuse them and I'm told the dangers of addiction if I don't take only what I need. It's such a tricky web.

Addicts do need rehab over jail. Agreed about that. What's the average jail time for prescription abuse?


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Doctors shouldn't over-prescribe anything, but I will say addicts are addicts. Not because they are prescribed anything. If you don't take more than you were supposed to, you should be fine.
> 
> It honestly scares me how much opioids are vilified right now because while addiction to them is a problem, they are necessary if you need them. I have recurring kidney issues that require me to be on them when they flare up again every few years and I could not get through it without them, but I've never been addicted. I use what's prescribed to me, use the dosage I'm told to and stop using them when I no longer need them. People need to be more reasonable when prescribed medication. I know every time I get a prescription I'm told not to abuse them and I'm told the dangers of addiction if I don't take only what I need. It's such a tricky web.
> 
> Addicts do need rehab over jail. Agreed about that. What's the average jail time for prescription abuse?


It's easier to blame a one word scapegoat than it is to admit what the actual problem is. It's the same old 'look here, but don't look over here' tactics. Just like the gun violence. The problems isn't actually the guns. It's the apathy toward their fellow man and reasons for committing crimes, but let's not address any of that. Taking the guns (or in this case: opioids) away does nothing to actually solve the root of the problem, which is a fundamental breakdown somewhere along the societal chain.

Opioids
Guns
Mexicans
Terrorists
Democrats
Republicans

And so on and so forth.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> No comments necessary.


And in other similar news.

https://www.apnews.com/a21b09bfce4d41b7ab1920399413aa5d



> *Lawsuits ramp up pressure on family that owns opioid company*
> 
> The legal pressure on the prominent family behind the company that makes OxyContin, the prescription painkiller that helped fuel the nation’s opioid epidemic, is likely to get more intense.
> 
> The Sackler family came under heavy scrutiny this week when a legal filing in a Massachusetts case asserted that family members and company executives sought to push prescriptions of the drug and downplay its risks. Those revelations are likely to be a preview of the claims in a series of expanding legal challenges.
> 
> Members of the family that controls Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma are also defendants in a lawsuit brought by New York’s Suffolk County. Few, if any, other governments have sued the family so far.
> 
> But Paul Hanly, a lawyer representing the county, said he expects to add the Sacklers to other opioid suits. He explained last year that he was targeting the family, known for its donations to some of the world’s great museums and universities, in part because they took “tens of billions” of dollars out of Purdue Pharma.
> 
> Looming as potentially the biggest legal and financial risk for the family is a massive consolidated federal case playing out in Ohio.
> 
> More than 1,000 government entities have sued Purdue, along with other drugmakers and distributors, claiming they are partly culpable for a drug overdose crisis that resulted in a record 72,000 deaths in 2017. The majority of those deaths were from legal or illicit opioids.
> 
> The company documents at the heart of the Massachusetts claims also could be evidence in the Ohio lawsuits, which are being overseen by a federal judge. The allegations ramp up pressure on the industry — and perhaps the Sacklers — to reach a settlement, said Paul Nolette, a political science professor at Marquette University who studies the role of state attorneys general.
> 
> Having Sackler family members named as defendants in Massachusetts “indicates that the government attorneys believe they have the ‘smoking guns’ necessary to broaden the potential liability of those at the top of the organization,” he said in an email.
> 
> The allegations could tarnish a name that is best known for its generosity to museums worldwide including New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has a Sackler wing, and London’s Tate Modern. The Sackler name also is on a gallery at the Smithsonian, a wing of galleries at London’s Royal Academy of Arts and a museum at Beijing’s Peking University. The family’s best known and most generous donor, Arthur M. Sackler, died nearly a decade before OxyContin was released.
> *
> The Cleveland-based judge, Dan Polster, has been pushing for a settlement since he took over the federal cases a year ago, arguing that the parties involved should find ways to end this man-made crisis, rather than hold years of trials. A court order prohibits participants from discussing most aspects of settlement talks publicly.
> *
> In its lawsuit filed last year, the Massachusetts attorney general’s office went after members of the Sackler family and Purdue, which is structured as a partnership and is not publicly traded.
> 
> The company’s flagship drug, OxyContin, was the first of a generation of drugs that used a narcotic painkiller in a time-release form. That meant each pill had a larger amount of drug in it than other versions and could get abusers a more intense high if they defeated the time-release process.
> 
> Many of the attorney general’s specific allegations — based on company documents — were blacked out at the request of Purdue and the Sackler family. The state recently filed a new version of its complaint that made public many of their allegations for the first time.
> 
> The state is asserting that Richard Sackler, a son of a company founder and at the time a senior vice president for Purdue, as well as other family members pushed selling OxyContin even when they knew it could cause problems. When the drug was first sold in 1996, the filing said, Sackler told the sales force “the launch of OxyContin Tablets will be followed by a blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition.”
> 
> *In 2007, the company and three current and former executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges that they deceived regulators, doctors and patients about the drug’s addiction risks. The company agreed to fines of $634 million.*
> 
> The next year, according to the Massachusetts lawsuit, the company pressed ahead with a new version of the drug designed to be harder for abusers to crush. It did so without first conducting trials and despite a warning from the company’s CEO that the new version “will not stop patients from the simple act of taking too many pills.”
> 
> Purdue responded to the Massachusetts filing with a strong statement: “In a rush to vilify a single manufacturer whose medicines represent less than 2 percent of opioid pain prescriptions rather than doing the hard work of trying to solve a complex public health crisis, the complaint distorts critical facts and cynically conflates prescription opioid medications with illegal heroin and fentanyl.”
> 
> A spokesman for the Sackler family declined to comment separately.
> 
> Abbe Gluck, a Yale law professor who is following the federal case in Ohio, said the documents could make Purdue seem more liable or bring the Sackler family into the case in a way that presents obstacles to a settlement. But she said that might not change things for the other companies involved.
> 
> “The drug companies have an interest in settling their own claims globally,” she said.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> of course there are right wing trolls and right wing sheep, wtf is your point?
> 
> do you even disagree with anything i've said or are you just upset that i lumped a group of people together as 'the left'? had i framed it as 'CNN' or 'MSNBC' or 'Hollywood'... would your panties still have gotten in a bunch?
> 
> everyone reacting to this story and taken the elderly man's side is (surprise) a lefty. it is the single most common thread among them.


Love how you leave out Fox News.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stephen90 said:


> Love how you leave out Fox News.


Fox News is not generally regarded as being on "the left" 

I don't think


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Fox News is not generally regarded as being on "the left"
> 
> I don't think


Yes but they still lie don't they? For the record yes CNN and MSNBC both lie as well but Fox lies more then both of them.


----------



## Smark Sheet

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

There's zero chance FOX News lies anywhere near as much as MSNBC and especially CNN. In fact, research has proven FOX News lives up to its name as the most fair and balanced news network. Their coverage of Obama and Trump both hovered around a 50/50 split in negative and positive, whereas, the other networks are heavily lopsided, essentially licking Obama's ass while terrorizing Mr. Trump.

So, no, it's not even close. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stephen90 said:


> Yes but they still lie don't they? For the record yes CNN and MSNBC both lie as well but Fox lies more then both of them.


I don't watch any of them so I wouldn't really know

Undoubtedly they do though 

They all do

There needs to be a new law and consequent affirming Supreme Court ruling that significantly guts _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan._ Opening the press up to serious lawsuits for the lies they constantly spew would quickly and vastly improve the situation.


----------



## Smark Sheet

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Glenn Greenwald is one of the only leftist reports who ocassionally tells the truth.

*Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump/Russia Story*


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Doctors shouldn't over-prescribe anything, but I will say addicts are addicts. Not because they are prescribed anything. If you don't take more than you were supposed to, you should be fine.


That's completely untrue. My brother tore his ACL/MCL/meniscus playing soccer when he was 17, and the doctors totally overprescribed him oxycodone and other painkillers long after he needed it. He'd never done a drug or even had a beer in his life, but he became an opioid addict and it almost ruined his life.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Physicians overprescribed opioids like crazy for almost 20 years until here we are today. People getting opioid pill prescriptions because they had... high blood pressure. Or diabetes. Not even confirmed diabetic nerve pain. Just diabetes. 

They did the same thing with morphine and laudanum after the Civil War.

And the same thing again with morphine after the First World War.

There have been three opioid crises in American history and every single one was caused mostly by the failure of physicians to not overprescribe.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stephen90 said:


> Love how you leave out Fox News.


what are you trying to infer by posting this?? why would i mention fox news when discussing bias LEFT WING propaganda networks???

yes fox news is bias, they are also RIGHT WING.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...nasia-gone-too-far-netherlands-assisted-dying

Undoubtedly some of these euthanasia deaths are actually family members or doctors playing God and euthanizing people incapable of consenting or objecting. Probably a small number but still.

"Well over a quarter" of the deaths in the country by euthanasia in 2017. The fuck is going on. There is no way "well over" 25% of the deaths in a single year are from people who are terminally ill with horribly painful or debilitating conditions. I give you my response in saddened bewilderment not in snarkyness:










A glimmer of hope in the news that there is a recent decline in the practice and that people are raising serious questions about the situation.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The media is biased to the establishment, thats all that matters. all this left-right bullshit is just the narrative they want instead of how the media serves warmongering necons.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> The media is biased to the establishment, thats all that matters. all this left-right bullshit is just the narrative they want instead of how the media serves warmongering necons.


my friend the neocons are not the only group that prefers a global security apparatus - i'm not even sure what to call it really - made up of a large (but membership at the top level is deliberately very much limited) coalition of rich and powerful nations and organizations and individuals

they arent even the most powerful group that does right now

not even close to the most powerful group that does right now


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> The media is biased to the establishment, thats all that matters. all this left-right bullshit is just the narrative they want instead of how the media serves warmongering necons.


This is true to a certain extent.

A better example of this isn't the American media where there are at least some clear lines between the American left and right (clear word being _American_, the overton window is shifted more to the right in the states) but the BBC. 

The amount of people who claim that the BBC have a left or right wing bias when they just in reality have a bias towards the status quo. UKIP, Brexit, Corbyn.....all of those things the BBC have been biased towards because they shake up the established order of the current day whether you agree with them all or not.

The BBC are trash and the license fee is a joke anyway, I'd privatize it (which leaves no reason for the stupid TV license) and get the state out. But that's just me :draper2, might be also because I don't get my entertainment or news from Television, let alone the BBC themselves.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Rolo Tomassi said:


> This is true to a certain extent.
> 
> 
> The BBC are trash and the license fee is a joke anyway, I'd privatize it (which leaves no reason for the stupid TV license) and get the state out. But that's just me :draper2, might be also because I don't get my entertainment or news from Television, let alone the BBC themselves.


The sooner the BBC is gone the better, its actually a hindrance to civil discord because everyone is so obsessed with their 'bias'. The extra money a month would suit me just fine.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Strike Force said:


> That's completely untrue. My brother tore his ACL/MCL/meniscus playing soccer when he was 17, and the doctors totally overprescribed him oxycodone and other painkillers long after he needed it. He'd never done a drug or even had a beer in his life, but he became an opioid addict and it almost ruined his life.


If he no longer needed it he would have stopped taking them or stop asking for prescriptions. You don't need a doctor to tell you if you're in pain or not. As someone who gets plenty of prescriptions I can tell you I usually end up with a few extra, but that's why you stop once the pain is to a manageable level and you switch to OTC relievers. I'm sorry for your brother, but at some point he started taking more than he needed. It's easier to blame a boogeyman than admit our own part in it.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> If he no longer needed it he would have stopped taking them or stop asking for prescriptions. You don't need a doctor to tell you if you're in pain or not. As someone who gets plenty of prescriptions I can tell you I usually end up with a few extra, but that's why you stop once the pain is to a manageable level and you switch to OTC relievers. I'm sorry for your brother, but at some point he started taking more than he needed. It's easier to blame a boogeyman than admit our own part in it.


The doctors have been financially incentivized for years to overprescribe. If you're not aware of this widespread problem, I can't help you. You need to do more research.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Strike Force said:


> The doctors have been financially incentivized for years to overprescribe. If you're not aware of this widespread problem, I can't help you. You need to do more research.


I already said in my first post doctors shouldn't over-prescribe, but they can't make you take more than you need. If someone goes back for a refill when they don't need it, it's on the doctors too sure, but you as the person is still equally responsible for your own choices. You know when you're in pain or not, when you're taking more than what you're supposed to or not. I always have extra when I come to the end of my prescriptions and I wean myself back off when I know I no longer need them. I don't need to do research, I've lived this. Thanks, though. My biggest problem with all of this is if I can no longer get the prescriptions I need because others can't take medication responsibly, it's going to be a miserable time for me.

My parents are also drug addicts. I've seen and lived it all.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> I already said in my first post doctors shouldn't over-prescribe, but they can't make you take more than you need. If someone goes back for a refill when they don't need it, it's on the doctors too sure, but you as the person is still equally responsible for your own choices. You know when you're in pain or not, when you're taking more than what you're supposed to or not. I always have extra when I come to the end of my prescriptions and I wean myself back off when I know I no longer need them. I don't need to do research, I've lived this. Thanks, though. My biggest problem with all of this is if I can no longer get the prescriptions I need because others can't take medication responsibly, it's going to be a miserable time for me.
> 
> My parents are also drug addicts. I've seen and lived it all.


Personal accountability is a dying concept. That says a lot about our future liberties. It's always who we can pin it on, rather than what I can do differently as a person.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087918469008576513
yeah fuck this bitch


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087918469008576513
> yeah fuck this bitch


Agreed, she's a lying twat.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Wishing a speedy recovery to Charlie Kirk. 



> yeah fuck this bitch


The worst Minnesota has to offer!

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/24/fda-opioids-big-pharma-prescriptions



> *FDA's opioids adviser accuses agency of having 'direct' link to crisis*
> 
> The chair of the FDA’s opioid advisory committee described a ‘war’ within the agency over the opioid epidemic.
> 
> The Food and Drug Administration is sacrificing American lives by continuing to approve new high-strength opioid painkillers, and manipulating the process in favor of big pharma, according to the chair of the agency’s own opioid advisory committee.
> 
> Dr Raeford Brown told the Guardian there is “a war” within the FDA as officials in charge of opioid policy have “failed to learn the lessons” of the epidemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of people over the past 20 years and continues to claim about 150 lives a day.
> 
> Brown accused the agency of putting the interests of narcotics manufacturers ahead of public health, most recently by approving a “terrible drug”, Dsuvia, in a process he alleged was manipulated.
> 
> “They should stop considering any new opioid evaluation,” said Brown. “For every day and every week and every month that the FDA don’t do the right thing, people drop dead on the streets. What they do has a direct impact on the mortality rate from opioids in this country.”
> 
> Brown, an anesthesiologist who chairs the FDA committee of specialists advising the agency on whether to approve new opioid painkillers, said he no longer had confidence in repeated assurances by the FDA leadership that it was taking the epidemic seriously and prepared to put public health above the commercial interests of drug makers.
> US regions where drug companies marketed hit hardest by opioids crisis
> Read more
> 
> “I think that the FDA has learned nothing. The modus operandi of the agency is that they talk a good game and then nothing happens. Working directly with the agency for the last five years, as I sit and listen to them in meetings, all I can think about is the clock ticking and how many people are dying every moment that they’re not doing anything,” he said. “The lack of insight that continues to be exhibited by the agency is in many ways a willful blindness that borders on the criminal.”
> 
> Brown’s comments echo criticisms by US senators who have condemned the FDA for what they say is its “complicity” in the epidemic, for approving the powerful painkillers that drove the crisis and then failing to use its powers to protect the public as the death toll escalated.
> 
> Four US senators wrote to the head of the FDA, Dr Scott Gottlieb, late last year urging him not to allow Dsuvia, a powerful opioid pill, on to the market because it was “to the detriment of public health”.
> 
> Dsuvia is a branded narcotic sufentanil pill, a more potent version of fentanyl, made by Californian pharmaceutical company AcelRx. The signatories included Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, whose state has the highest rate of opioid overdose deaths in the country.
> 
> “This puzzling and unacceptable course of events is unfortunately reminiscent of previous FDA processes and practices that contributed to the opioid epidemic,” the letter said.
> 
> The FDA’s credibility has been badly damaged by the opioid crisis amid accusations that at times it behaved less as a regulator overseeing the pharmaceutical industry than a business partner of drug manufacturers. The agency helped unleash the epidemic two decades ago when it approved the sale of a high strength narcotic pill, OxyContin, as safer and more effective than other painkillers on the say so of the manufacturer, Purdue Pharma, and without requiring clinical trials. Since then the FDA has approved other opioids for wide prescribing even as evidence mounted the drugs were addictive, open to abuse and often not effective for long-term use.
> 
> The FDA was also embarrassed by revelations that officials responsible for opioid approvals were taking part in “pay to play” schemes in which manufacturers paid to attend meetings to draw up the criteria for approving prescription narcotics.
> 
> Donald Trump’s opioid commission identified the failure of the FDA and other federal institutions to properly regulate opioids and their manufacturers as an important factor in the epidemic.
> 
> After Trump appointed Gottlieb, the new FDA chief admitted the agency “didn’t get ahead” of the crisis and promised “dramatic” action. He said he favoured examining not only whether an opioid worked but whether it was needed and whether the risks of it feeding the epidemic outweighed benefits for patients.
> 
> But that commitment has been called into question by the slow pace of introducing new practices and regulations – and by the approval of Dsuvia, a potent pill developed with the US defense department.
> 
> An advisory committee rejected the drug in 2017 over safety concerns. The senators said that they were “deeply troubled” that when Dsuvia was resubmitted for consideration the following year, the FDA excluded members of the agency’s drug safety committee from the hearing. The senators also said they were concerned because the decision was made when Brown, a strong critic of Dsuvia, was absent at a professional conference in San Francisco.
> 
> “There’s no question in my mind right that they did that on purpose,” he said. “The FDA has a lack of transparency. They use the advisory committees as cover.”
> *
> The FDA is not required to follow the decisions of its advisory committees but has been wary of going against their decisions since 2012, when the agency created a political storm by overruling a decision to reject Zohydro, an opioid 10 times more powerful than regular painkillers.
> 
> Doctors and specialists on the committee questioned the safety of the drug and the need for it given the epidemic. The senior FDA official at the hearing, Dr Bob Rappaport, who was head of the agency’s opioid approval division, angered other members by telling them there had to be “a level playing field for business”, which was widely interpreted as putting the right of pharmaceutical companies to make money ahead of public health.
> *
> Brown described a breakdown in confidence and trust between his advisory committee and FDA officials responsible for opioid approvals. He characterized them as out of touch with the consequences of the epidemic and locked into a view promoted by drugmakers that those who become hooked are to blame for their addiction not the pills or prescribing practices.
> 
> Brown blamed the problem in part on “cozy, cozy relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and various parts of the FDA”. Since a change to the FDA’s funding in the 1990s, the agency division responsible for opioid approvals relies on the drug industry for 75% of its budget. The agency denies the money buys influence.
> 
> The FDA declined to respond to Brown’s specific criticisms.
> 
> Gottlieb has previously defended Dsuvia by saying it is required for use in circumstances where other drugs cannot be administered, such as a battlefield. The FDA chief promised “very tight restrictions” on its distribution to stop the drug appearing on the illicit market. He insisted the FDA had “learned much from the harmful impact” that prescription opioids have had.
> 
> But Brown remains skeptical.
> 
> “Nothing is fundamentally being done to effect change in the regulation of opioids. If the FDA continues to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to turn out opioid after opioid after opioid, and the regulation of those opioids is no better than it was in 1995, then we’ll be cleaning this up for a long time,” said Brown.


Yep.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






This is a good listen.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

"American Exceptionalism"












Some genuinely believe that this is the greatest country on Earth.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> "American Exceptionalism"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some genuinely believe that this is the greatest country on Earth.


I've had to do this for family, cannot put anyone on your insurance unless children, spouse etc. I pay for the insurance, I should be able to put whomever i damn well want on it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I've had to do this for family, cannot put anyone on your insurance unless children, spouse etc. I pay for the insurance, I should be able to put whomever i damn well want on it.


The fact that this is an arrestable offence shows you who owns _*everything*_.

What the fuck kind of a country is this?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The fact that this is an arrestable offence shows you who owns _*everything*_.
> 
> What the fuck kind of a country is this?


One Elites and the Super rich enjoy!

Half the population are wage slaves, the other half are dependent on Government handouts and failing Social programs.

One where the population takes it's moral ques from a group of people who've sealed themselves off from the rest of us and view us as gnats. Yet we should be lucky to be as "woke" and moral as them! 

The West is slowly turning back into Feudal dictatorship, which isn't surprising because the Elites never wanted that to end anyways! 

I have some theories but would be a big post, so may just PM you my thoughts sometime :nerd:


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Ladies and Gentlemen Black Hillary


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

What a wonderful country. 

In real countries when the government stops working, people change the government ... Not stop paying the workers. 

But yeah, America isn't a dystopia.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The resistance everyone


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






I have no idea how she has any supporters. There's so much to hate regardless of where you fall politically.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

She's Discount Michelle Obama.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I have no idea how she has any supporters. There's so much to hate regardless of where you fall politically.


No idea, she's been involved in a lot of scandals, when Tater posts scandals her name is up 50% of the time. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

:hmmm


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> No idea, she's been involved in a lot of scandals, when Tater posts scandals her name is up 50% of the time. :laugh:


You know how many scandals Trump was in while running for president and he won lol

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/427071-sanders-to-announce-presidential-campaign-report


Sanders poised to announce presidential campaign: report

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is reportedly set to announce his second presidential campaign.

Yahoo News reported Friday night, citing two people with direct knowledge of his plans, that Sanders will make his announcement "imminently."


The Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

One of the sources told Yahoo News that Sanders was encouraged by multiple national polls showing him near the top of a crowded pack of possible Democratic candidates.

Sanders has widely been viewed a possible top-tier candidate in 2020 after challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Recent polling figures have suggested he could expect higher popularity among African American and Hispanic voters in 2020 compared to 2016. He also has reportedly been heartened by polling that showed him as the most popular politician in the country.

“What the senator has this time that he didn’t have last time is he is the most popular elected official in the country right now,” one source told Yahoo News. “That’s light years away from 2016 when very few people knew who he was.” 

A third source told Yahoo News that Sanders would announce a presidential exploratory committee.

“He’s already talking to staff and there are people he’s hiring. They’re nailing down contracts with vendors, … all the movement is there for him to run,” a former Sanders staffer told Yahoo News.

Sanders burst onto the presidential scene in 2016 with a progressive campaign that proved more competitive than election prognosticators expected. Though he ultimately failed to get the Democratic Party’s nomination, he succeeded in electrifying the party’s progressive wing and pushing the party further to the left. 

Sanders is likely to enter a primary field that could see as many as 30 candidates run in 2020, including a number of senators and former government officials from diverse backgrounds.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> :hmmm


My aunt's neighbor just got back from doing this. She needed abdominal surgery and it was cheaper to drive to Mexico from Georgia and get it done there. Crazy.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> My aunt's neighbor just got back from doing this. She needed abdominal surgery and it was cheaper to drive to Mexico from Georgia and get it done there. Crazy.


Yet we still have no Medicare for all


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> My aunt's neighbor just got back from doing this. She needed abdominal surgery and it was cheaper to drive to Mexico from Georgia and get it done there. Crazy.


Taught us about this in the 90s in Canada as a warning against privatized healthcare when they were considering a Two-tier healthcare system. Good thing that nonsense didn't take off. 

Now that China had full universal Healthcare without a dent in its economy, America is really turning into an embarrassing third world shithole.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

reaper do you live in america?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Kamala Harris is absolutely abhorrent.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






Sad that this song is even more appropriate now then it was even then


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/25/fcc_accused_of_colluding/



> *FCC accused of colluding with Big Cable to game 5G legal challenge*
> 
> US telecoms regulator the FCC has been accused of colluding with companies it is supposed to oversee in order to protect a controversial decision over new 5G networks.
> 
> Chair of the House Commerce chair, Frank Pallone, has sent a letter to FCC chair Ajit Pai asking for copies of communications between the FCC and the big telcos regarding legal challenges to the regulator's 5G order, which forces local governments to charge a flat fee for installing new base stations.
> 
> In the letter [PDF], Pallone strongly implies that the committee has heard from a whistleblower.
> 
> "It has come to our attention that certain individuals at the FCC may have urged companies to challenge the order the Commission adopted in order to game the judicial lottery procedure and intimated the agency would look unfavorably towards entities that were not helpful," it reads.
> 
> In effect, the letter alleges that FCC staff – almost certainly from Pai's office – put pressure on the big telcos to challenge an order that is designed to benefit them as a way of gaming the judicial system so the case didn't end up in a court likely to overturn it.
> 
> As crazy as that sounds, given what we know of the FCC under chair Ajit Pai, it is all too possible. Not only has Pai's office pandered to Big Cable to an excessive degree in the past two years, pushing through changes vehemently opposed by everyone that isn't one of the main telcos, there has been a rumors that the regulator is actively working in secret with companies it is supposed to oversee. A series of unusually aligned and coordinated responses have long raised eyebrows.
> 
> In one case, a series of decisions that appeared designed to benefit a single company – Sinclair – become the focus on an investigation by the FCC's Ombudsman who ultimately concluded he couldn't prove any collusion. The final report was very far from clearing their names however and could be seen as evidence that Pai and his staff have become adept at hiding their tracks.
> 
> *Playing the circuit*
> 
> In this case, the 5G order was strongly opposed by a large number of local and city governments because it tied their hands over what they can charge for 5G installations. The opposition was particularly intense in California where the high concentration of users and high cost of real estate means cities were expecting to be able to charge significantly more than $270 per site per year; several cities had already reached agreement with mobile operators to charge significantly more.
> 
> Due to the concentration of Californian legal challengers, the issue would naturally expect to be heard in California's Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has a long history of striking down efforts by the federal government to impose its will on the state. As such, the FCC could reasonable expect its order to be challenged – and possibly lose which would delay and possibly derail the whole program.
> 
> Enter the telcos. All the main four mobile operators challenged the order with their own lawsuits. It was an approach that baffled observers, including ourselves.
> 
> The telco lawsuits claimed that the 5G order didn't go far enough. The order should have included so-called "deemed granted" provisions that would cause a new cell site to be automatically approved once the imposed application timelines had been passed. Otherwise, they argued, they would be forced to sue if local authorities missed the deadline – a big waste of their time and money.
> 
> It didn't make much sense for the telcos to sue the FCC over an order that massively benefits them to the tune of billions of dollars. It is noteworthy that the companies sued in four different circuits: First, Second, Tenth and Washington DC.
> 
> As a result, the various lawsuits were consolidated and under the legal system's way of handling such disparate appeals, a lottery was held. That lottery in November led to the cases being moved to the Tenth Circuit - which covers the middle of the country – Oklahoma, Utah, Colorado, etc – and the appellants were told to migrate their cases accordingly. In short, if the plan was to get the case out of California, it worked.
> *
> Suspicions
> *
> But local government officials were very suspicions something untoward was going on. The West Coast cities challenged the decision to move the case to the Tenth Circuit and argued it should be heard in California where a similar case against the FCC and 5G was already being heard.
> pointing
> The value of having the case heard in the Tenth Circuit became immediately apparent in January when the court rejected a plea to delay the order while legal challenges were going ahead. That decision was cheered by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who has led the charge and was Aji Pai's former advisor before being placed on the commission by Pai.
> 
> However the Tenth Circuit also decided that the case should be moved to the Ninth Circuit because it was so similar to the other legal challenge against the FCC. That decision to move the case was fiercely opposed by… the telcos that had lodged their appeals across the rest of the country.
> 
> The truth is that the telcos could have challenged the decision in pretty much any circuit due to the companies' national reach but the fact that all four of them choose a different circuit, forcing it to a lottery does look like a concerted effort to game the system.
> 
> What is extraordinary however is the assertion by Pallone as chair of the House Commerce committee that it may have been FCC staff directing this strategy.
> 
> "If true," the letter states, "it would be inappropriate for the FCC to leverage its power as a regulator to influence regulated companies to further its agenda in seeking a more friendly court."
> 
> Now that the Democrats have taken over the House, they have the power to direct investigations and subpoena witnesses so the investigation is not without teeth. The letter gives the FCC three weeks to hand over any relevant communications between FCC staff and the telcos through both official and personal channels.
> 
> *Pure coincidence. Again*
> 
> Whether the committee will turn up anything damning will likely be a question of luck: previous investigations into Pai's office have demonstrated significant awareness of how to avoid leaving a paper trail, including holding face-to-face meetings with the stated intention of the meeting different to the true reason, and official phones and emails used only to arrange meetings with the real content of discussions going unrecorded.
> 
> Of course, it is possible that the telcos decided by themselves and without communicating with one another, or the FCC, to challenge a decision that gives them exactly what they want and saves them billions of dollars in four completely different jurisdictions. It could all just be one huge coincidence. Like last time. And the time before that.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if the source of information that Pallone claims to have has access to recordings or written meeting notes – which could proof particularly damaging if the FCC attempts to deny any interactions – or if he is simply using the threat of insider information to make the FCC nervous about how to respond.
> 
> The FCC has declined to respond to the letter or its allegations on the basis that it is currently impacted by the partial government shutdown, which has entered its 33rd day at time of going to press.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Again, we are closer to being in a William Gibson novel


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I've had to do this for family, cannot put anyone on your insurance unless children, spouse etc. I pay for the insurance, I should be able to put whomever i damn well want on it.


I pay for like 17% of what my insurance costs. My employer pays the rest. I imagine the rate was negotiated between them and limits were agreed to between them on who could be added to my plan. 



birthday_massacre said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/427071-sanders-to-announce-presidential-campaign-report
> 
> 
> Sanders poised to announce presidential campaign: report
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is reportedly set to announce his second presidential campaign.
> 
> Yahoo News reported Friday night, citing two people with direct knowledge of his plans, that Sanders will make his announcement "imminently."
> 
> 
> The Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.
> 
> One of the sources told Yahoo News that Sanders was encouraged by multiple national polls showing him near the top of a crowded pack of possible Democratic candidates.
> 
> Sanders has widely been viewed a possible top-tier candidate in 2020 after challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016.
> 
> Recent polling figures have suggested he could expect higher popularity among African American and Hispanic voters in 2020 compared to 2016. He also has reportedly been heartened by polling that showed him as the most popular politician in the country.
> 
> “What the senator has this time that he didn’t have last time is he is the most popular elected official in the country right now,” one source told Yahoo News. “That’s light years away from 2016 when very few people knew who he was.”
> 
> A third source told Yahoo News that Sanders would announce a presidential exploratory committee.
> 
> “He’s already talking to staff and there are people he’s hiring. They’re nailing down contracts with vendors, … all the movement is there for him to run,” a former Sanders staffer told Yahoo News.
> 
> Sanders burst onto the presidential scene in 2016 with a progressive campaign that proved more competitive than election prognosticators expected. Though he ultimately failed to get the Democratic Party’s nomination, he succeeded in electrifying the party’s progressive wing and pushing the party further to the left.
> 
> Sanders is likely to enter a primary field that could see as many as 30 candidates run in 2020, including a number of senators and former government officials from diverse backgrounds.


Sander is the best bet for Democrats. I think he's at least a candidate that if people don't support they can at least respect. Our views on the world are pretty different but I looked at him differently then a lot of other prominent Democrats. 


Also I think he's said he plans on wiping away my $120,000 in dept. I'll vote for a socialist for $120,000. I mean would I vote him in, hope my debt goes away, and then vote him out 4 years later? Yes. But I would vote for someone with a clear student debt campaign promise. And I won't vote for someone that wants free college for everyone without loan forgiveness. I'm fine paying a little more in taxes for the rest of my life for a more educated country. I can live with that. What drives me crazy is the thought that I'm going to pay more in taxes for the rest of my life AND pay off my own student debt that I have.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> My aunt's neighbor just got back from doing this. She needed abdominal surgery and it was cheaper to drive to Mexico from Georgia and get it done there. Crazy.


Mexico isn't too bad, the problems arise when it's at a shady hospital that may not be well regulated, do you really want to go under the knife in a place like that?

Thing is if there is a market for it, they'll do it. So Mexico has opened up some fairly good facilities because with enough financial incentive people will do nearly anything. 

This is why I also don't believe in brain draining other countries, those places need their Doctors etc too.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Let's broadcast the superiority of Mexican healthcare so even more people will migrate (back) there. :mark: No need to worry about racist white supremacists over there either.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089342792642543616


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Saw a link to this letter from 1785 from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison. Interesting read. In it Jefferson advocates for high taxation on the rich and subdividing lands when too much wealth/land ownership is concentrated in too few hands.

This is not the full letter. I cut out the opening salutations and explanations and then the last part that was just Jefferson's observations on French fruit. 

*Full letter*



> ...This being the first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place. For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league.
> 
> As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.
> 
> The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state...


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





To the shock of no one. Sorry, you can't claim to defend one group and then defend another group that hates the other group you're defending.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Figured it was a just matter of time before 'intersectionality' and Islam started butting heads.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> Figured it was a just matter of time before 'intersectionality' and Islam started butting heads.


Surprised it took this long


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Surprised it took this long


Here in Canada we passed transgender bills c-16 and 89 and also an anti-islamaphobia motion 103. Been waiting for them to butt heads in a public/litigious way.


----------



## virus21

777 said:


> Here in Canada we passed transgender bills c-16 and 89 and also an anti-islamaphobia motion 103. Been waiting for them to butt heads in a public/litigious way.


Grab the popcorn

_I see new meme rising. I see amusement on the way_


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Kamala Harris is absolutely abhorrent.


She's Discount Michelle Obama. To make it even worse, she slept her way to the top:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/27/willie-brown-kamala-harris-san-francisco-chronicle-letter/2695143002/



> Figured it was a just matter of time before 'intersectionality' and Islam started butting heads.
> 
> 
> 
> Here in Canada we passed transgender bills c-16 and 89 and also an anti-islamaphobia motion 103. Been waiting for them to butt heads in a public/litigious way.
Click to expand...

Remember when Black Lives Matter blocked the Gay Pride parade? At the end of the day, The Left will eat their own. 

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089342792642543616


Judging by the facts baby boomers run MSNBC,CNN and Fox News. This is a very good point.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Comet Ping Pong Pizza set on fire. this was the place named in the whole Pizza Gate conspiracy bullshit. Same place that crazy asshole shot up a couple of years ago looking for child sex slaves in the basement. Of course there was no basement in the place.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/comet-ping-pong-blaze-investigated-as-arson-police-launch-search-for-man



> *Comet Ping Pong blaze investigated as arson, police launch search for suspect*
> 
> Comet Ping Pong, the popular Washington, D.C. pizza parlor that gained national attention due to the infamous “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory, was intentionally set alight last week and federal officials were hunting for a suspect caught looking directly into a surveillance camera.
> 
> The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tweeted its investigators were searching for a male between the ages of 25 and 30 years old with blonde hair, a mustache and a beard.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088929252978888704
> Employees were able to extinguish the blaze, which broke out Wednesday after 9 p.m., and no one was injured. Investigators discovered matches and lighter fluid on the floor of a back room where the fire started, The Washington Post reported, citing a police report.
> 
> The D.C. eatery was thrust into the spotlight after an Internet rumor alleged former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton were among a group of wealthy elites involved in an international sex slavery ring that was allegedly centered at the pizza joint. Some theorists believed emails from the account of 2016 Clinton campaign chair John Podesta contained codes known to pedophiles. Drawings inside Comet Ping Pong and photos from social media accounts belonging to the restaurant's owners were also used to support the far-fetched insinuation.
> 
> In June 2017, Edgar Maddison Welch was sentenced to four years in prison after he walked into the pizza shop armed with an AR-15 and a revolver to investigate the rumors. Welch fired his gun multiple times and, after finding no children held against their will, he surrendered to police.
> 
> The “Pizzagate” theory had been widely debunked.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019...ith-john-kasich-taking-her-airplane-seat.html

:lol

Funny article about John Kasich acting like a child and taking someone else's airline seat because he didn't want to accept being bumped, so he basically made them bump someone else instead, even though policy dictated he should be the one bumped. Not saying it's a good policy, but still douchey behavior on his part with respect to the other person.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/28/us-looks-increasingly-willing-to-settle



> U.S. Likely To Settle for Afghan Withdrawal Deal It Could Have Got 15 Years Ago
> 
> The U.S. and the Taliban have agreed to a draft framework for a peace agreement that could pave the pay for a U.S. military withdrawal from the country, said the chief American envoy to the country.
> 
> According to a New York Times report from Monday, Zalmay Khalilzad—a U.S. special representative to Afghanistan—said that Taliban officials agreed to not host international terrorist organizations in the country. That, coupled with larger concessions, could lead to a full American military withdrawal.
> 
> "The Taliban have committed, to our satisfaction, to do what is necessary that would prevent Afghanistan from ever becoming a platform for international terrorist groups or individuals," Khalilzad told the Times. "We felt enough confidence that we said we need to get this fleshed out, and details need to be worked out."
> 
> U.S. officials have been in direct talks with Taliban officials since at least July 2018, repeating these interactions in October and December. The tentative framework coming out of this latest January meeting represents "the biggest tangible step toward ending a two-decade war," the Times reports.
> 
> It also a deal the U.S. could have gotten long ago and with much less bloodshed, says Cato foreign policy scholar John Glaser.
> 
> "The broad outlines of the peace deal that we are now negotiating could have been pursued back in 2001," Glaser tells Reason. "We really could have gotten out of Afghanistan a decade and a half ago if we didn't harbor ridiculous ambitions of we might accomplish in Afghanistan."
> 
> Those ambitions included an attempt to eliminate the Taliban as a political force in Afghanistan and establish a stable, democratic government in its place, Glaser says.
> 
> Despite 17 years of direct U.S. military involvement in the country—which has cost $900 billion and the lives of some 2,400 U.S. military personnel—these goals have proven elusive.
> 
> A late October report from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) found that the U.S.-backed Afghan government controlled just 56 percent of the country's administrative districts—down from 72 percent in 2015—and that while violent incidents as a whole were down, civilian deaths were increasing. It's estimated that over 31,000 Afghan civilians have been killed between 2001 and 2016.
> 
> Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani said recently that 45,000 Afghan troops had been killed since he assumed office in 2014, a large increase over the 28,000 that were previously thought to have died during that time.
> 
> President Donald Trump was highly critical of the U.S.'s war in Afghanistan while on the campaign trail, arguing that we had no business being in the country anymore. Shortly after assuming office, however, he was convinced to stay, and even increased the number of U.S. troops in the country by some 4,000.
> 
> In late December Trump appeared to reverse himself again, with officials saying he would cut the number of U.S. forces in the country in half, from 14,000 to 7,000.
> 
> The latest news about very preliminary steps suggests the administration is finally serious about withdrawal. Given how early it is in the process however, there are still plenty of opportunities for things to go wrong.
> 
> The Taliban has so far refused to recognize the legitimacy of the U.S.-backed government in Kabul, a major sticking point. The corrupt and enfeebled Kabul regime is also desperate for at least some U.S. forces to remain. Few presidents want to have a lost war on their record.
> 
> Nevertheless, that these talks are making progress and that the U.S. government appears willing to accept a complete withdrawal from the country—as opposed to leaving a small ground force behind—is encouraging, says Glaser.
> 
> He cautions, however, that policymakers and the public more broadly need to accept that Afghanistan, and whoever ends up controlling it, poses almost no threat to U.S. security.
> 
> Its status as an impoverished, far away country means it could never pose a conventional threat to U.S. security, and that its geographic isolation make it operationally useless as a place to hatch terrorist plots against the west.
> 
> "We have to make it clear to ourselves," Glaser says, "that a ground presence in Afghanistan doesn't protect us from terrorism."


MIC had to get them dolla dolla bills first, the cost in human life be damned

Would be something to see an end to a war that has lasted for most of my life.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Tom Brokaw keeps his job at NBC after apologizing for making racially insensitive remarks while Megyn Kelly was fired for it. Funny how that works.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Now the laid-off Buzzfeed "reporters" want earned paid time off. Thats not how that works


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.postandcourier.com/business/sc-police-doctors-fighting-medical-marijuana-ag-calls-it-us/article_a47ce730-1f3f-11e9-b0f8-7324237272cc.html



> *SC police, doctors fighting medical marijuana; AG calls it US's 'most dangerous drug'*
> 
> COLUMBIA — Flanked by lawmakers, law enforcement officials and doctors in white lab coats, S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson called marijuana "the most dangerous drug" in America while denouncing legislation Wednesday that would allow patients to obtain it with a doctor's prescription.
> 
> *Various speakers, which included State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel and leaders from the S.C. Medical Association, suggested the use of medical marijuana would cause a litany of problems in South Carolina: addiction, increased traffic accidents and — without specifically citing any peer-reviewed research — an increase in the number of overdose deaths.
> 
> While standing in the center of the Statehouse lobby, Wilson rattled off slang describing the high from marijuana.
> 
> "They use words like stoned, high, wasted, baked, fried, cooked, chonged, cheeched, dope-faced, blazed, blitzed, blunted, blasted, danked, stupid, wrecked — and that's only half the words they use," Wilson said. "Are these consistent with something that describes a medicine?"
> 
> Wilson classified marijuana as the most dangerous drug because he said it was "the most misunderstood drug." *
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088184337139490824Dr. March Seabrook, the S.C. Medical Association president, focused his opposition on the lack of medical and regulatory oversight of marijuana. The trade group for doctors, he said, supports more research on marijuana and the use of cannabis oil for childhood seizures, a treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last year.
> 
> After the news conference, the Medical Association said it disagreed with Wilson's assessment that marijuana is "the most dangerous drug" in the country. Still, Seabrook argued the new legislation "will not improve the health of South Carolina.”
> 
> Medical marijuana supporters at the Statehouse said Wilson's comments and the overall tone at the news conference played on the public's fears.
> 
> "This is just hysteria," said state Sen. Dick Harpootlian, a Columbia Democrat and former prosecutor.
> 
> Nationwide, 33 states have set up regulations to allow for the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes. So far this year, 15 S.C. lawmakers, including many of Charleston County's legislative delegation, sponsored a bill to add South Carolina to that growing list.
> 
> The newly proposed legislation would allow patients to obtain up to two ounces of marijuana every two weeks — an amount that Wilson said is too much for a patient to use in that time.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

And on the flip, you have hipsters now refusing to vaccinate their children and bringing back dead diseases again.


----------



## blaird

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> And on the flip, you have hipsters now refusing to vaccinate their children and bringing back dead diseases again.


I have a former student who has one on the way and a less than 2 year old that is anti vax...love seeing her post stuff on FB from other anti vax moms' chats like that is some credible source. Her latest repost was all the diseases they dont vaccinate for. I dont know how you can see all these outbreaks and still be anti vax.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Stephen90 said:


> Judging by the facts baby boomers run MSNBC,CNN and Fox News. This is a very good point.


His character isn't good though, he loses credibility by taking a paycheck from that babyboomer he dislikes so much :lol It's not like he doesn't have wealth and is going broke while being the champion or anything. Not to mention he's an environmentalist...who litters and throws food and drinks at people :lol His character isn't even meant to be a hypocrite, he just is. Let's not start with how poorly his heel turn began either. Good villains can make you almost sympathize with them, Bryan's motivations have so many holes you can drive a mack truck through them.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

You know Bernie is the right candidate given how much the media continues to smear him while hiding as much as they can of Kamala's shady history. 










Also there is another strain if pushing other candidates as "like Bernie" ... But they're not "like Bernie". They just want you to believe that. 

There's no one " like Bernie" in the Democratic party. There are rumors that the Democrat machine doesn't even want him to run.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

bernie sanders said bread lines were 'a good thing'.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I generally have to stand in lines to get bread myself at the local store.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

pretty sure that's not what he was referring to.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Typical BB taking stuff out of context and just posting a 17 sec clip instead of everything he said.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

*Michael Bloomberg*: You could never afford [Medicare For All].

*Also Michael Bloomberg*: I've always respected those who tried to change the world for the better, rather than just complain about it.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> *Michael Bloomberg*: You could never afford [Medicare For All].
> 
> *Also Michael Bloomberg*: I've always respected those who tried to change the world for the better, rather than just complain about it.
> 
> - Vic


You didn't think he wouldn't be a hypocrite did you?


----------



## Martins

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You know Bernie is the right candidate given how much the media continues to smear him while hiding as much as they can of Kamala's shady history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is another strain if pushing other candidates as "like Bernie" ... But they're not "like Bernie". They just want you to believe that.
> 
> There's no one " like Bernie" in the Democratic party. There are rumors that the Democrat machine doesn't even want him to run.


The worst thing here is that the Bernie video is a gigantic disappointment.

The camera only pans over to him once during the part where they're all half-naked at the table singing, and by then only one woman's talking and he doesn't even say anything.

I wanted a completely shitfaced Sanders bellowing the solo parts from Kalinka at the top of his lungs in perfect Russian. That'd make me like him way more.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You know Bernie is the right candidate given how much the media continues to smear him while hiding as much as they can of Kamala's shady history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is another strain if pushing other candidates as "like Bernie" ... But they're not "like Bernie". They just want you to believe that.
> 
> There's no one " like Bernie" in the Democratic party. There are rumors that the Democrat machine doesn't even want him to run.


*"It Can't Be Warren and It Can't Be Sanders": Wall Street Executives Make 2020 Preferences Known*



> The first 2020 Democratic presidential primary is still over a year away, but Wall Street executives are reportedly already freaking out about two likely progressive candidates: Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
> 
> "It can't be Warren and it can't be Sanders," the CEO of a "giant bank" anonymously told Politico, which reported on Monday that Wall Street executives are "getting panicked" about the presidential prospects of the Senate's two fiercest financial sector critics.
> 
> Warren launched an exploratory committee for president last month, vowing to take on the "corruption" that is "poisoning our democracy." Sanders, for his part, has yet to publicly announce a bid for the White House—but Yahoo News reported on Friday that the Vermont senator plans to launch his campaign "imminently."
> 
> Both progressive senators have placed scrutiny of Wall Street's size, record of large-scale fraud, exorbitant CEO pay packages, enormous political influence, and lack of stringent regulations at the center of their political agendas for years, and deep-pocketed bankers who have profited immensely from President Donald Trump's tenure are worried that one of the two could ascend to the White House and threaten their pocketbooks.
> 
> "Bankers' biggest fear," Politico reported, is that the 2020 Democratic presidential "nomination goes to an anti-Wall Street crusader" like Warren or Sanders.
> 
> "The result is a kind of nervous paralysis of executives pining for a centrist nominee like Michael Bloomberg," Politico noted, referring to the billionaire former New York City mayor, who is reportedly considering a self-funded presidential bid.
> 
> According to Politico, Wall Street executives who want Trump out of the White House mentioned "a consistent roster of appealing nominees" they would find acceptable outside of Bloomberg, who the outlet describes as Wall Street's "platonic ideal."
> 
> This "roster" reportedly included Democratic Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), and Kamala Harris (Calif.); former Vice President Joe Biden; and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas).
> 
> As CNBC reported earlier this month, Harris, Booker, and Gillibrand have all reached out to Wall Street to gauge support for 2020 campaigns. Harris announced that she is running for president last week, and Gillibrand launched an exploratory committee for president earlier this month.
> 
> One executive—who Politico described as a hedge fund manager and a top Democratic donor—declared, "If it's Biden and Beto or Biden and Harris, that might make a difference. The good news for Biden is everyone likes him. The bad news is there is not a lot of passion."
> 
> Progressives were quick to argue on Twitter that Wall Street's fear of a possible Sanders or Warren presidency constitutes a powerful endorsement of both candidates.
> 
> By coming out so strongly against the progressive senators, argued The Daily Beast's Gideon Resnick, Wall Street is "literally giving them a campaign slogan."
> 
> In response to Wall Street's largely anonymous attacks on Sanders and Warren, People for Bernie tweeted, "We bathe in your tears."
> 
> “It can’t be Warren and it can’t be Sanders,” said the CEO of another giant bank. “It has to be someone centrist and someone who can win.”
> 
> We bathe in their tears. https://t.co/KMkUdAoGxI
> 
> — People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) January 28, 2019
> 
> "The best indication of who you should vote for in the Democratic Primary if you actually want progressive policy is who Wall Street doesn't like, which essentially means Bernie or Warren," concluded journalist Josh Mound.


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/28/it-cant-be-warren-and-it-cant-be-sanders-wall-street-executives-make-2020

gee, i wonder who i should vote for. :hmmm


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> bernie sanders said bread lines were 'a good thing'.


:maisie3

I can't understand why you'd share this? 

Clearly he's not saying poverty is a good thing, he's saying that at least the poor are given food in Nicuragua instead of starving. 

A feeble and simple minded attempt.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Of course Bernie speaks nothing of the mass killing necessary to implement communism in the first place, because while people can be communists in a capitalist society, people can't be capitalists in a communist society. It's a bankrupt ideology with violence as its central operating mechanism. Capitalism is infinitely better. It's so good we can all debate about it from our laptops and smart phones. :lol 

Speaking of mass killings, let's talk about the Democrats and abortion. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090446344584478720
Is it still a clump of cells at 40 weeks? If not, when did the change occur, exactly? 

What is it with leftists and death? Eat the capitalists. Abort the babies. Better we all starve to death than allow some of us to be rich while most of us do just OK. 

It's clear why envy is a cardinal sin in Christianity, given how alluring leftist policies are to our lizard brains (now featuring monkey expansion pack) despite the mass graves and countless lives that never got to have their chance to impact this world. The wages of sin are death. How prophetic.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Of course Bernie speaks nothing of the mass killing necessary to implement communism in the first place, because while people can be communists in a capitalist society, people can't be capitalists in a communist society. It's a bankrupt ideology with violence as its central operating mechanism. Capitalism is infinitely better. It's so good we can all debate about it from our laptops and smart phones. :lol
> 
> Speaking of mass killings, let's talk about the Democrats and abortion.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090446344584478720
> Is it still a clump of cells at 40 weeks? If not, when did the change occur, exactly?
> 
> What is it with leftists and death? Eat the capitalists. Abort the babies. Better we all starve to death than allow some of us to be rich while most of us do just OK.
> 
> It's clear why envy is a cardinal sin in Christianity, given how alluring leftist policies are to our lizard brains (now featuring monkey expansion pack) despite the mass graves and countless lives that never got to have their chance to impact this world. The wages of sin are death. How prophetic.


The sanctification of envy, resentment, and greed, as long as they are indulged for the 'correct' reasons, is deeply corrosive to a society.

As an examination of history proves beyond argument. But history has a lot of old white men who are dead now in it and it happened more than a hundred years ago so it can't possibly have any value.

The necessity of coercion and conformity inherent in socialism is the stumbling block that socialism cannot get past. A socialist society cannot survive if nonconformity is tolerated. Conformity can only be achieved through massive violence and the threat of it. 

Societies that adhere to the tenets of classical liberalism are very evidently superior. Want to be a socialist in such a society? Fine. Even a _Nazi?!_ Fine. Want to live in a commune that operates on the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'? Fine. Want to be a capitalist? An anarchist? Want to be religious in thought and deed? Not religious? All fine. Be whatever! Just don't tread on others because of it.

In a socialist society, the only tolerated option is to be socialist in thought and deed. Socialism is an apocalyptic, 'end of history' ideology. The answers have all been figured out, and the answers are all socialism. This is why socialist societies have uniformly been oppressive and blood-soaked. Answers that are not socialism are not only incorrect but pernicious and evil, because socialism is perfection.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'm renouncing libertarianism. It's an ineffectual weapon against the evil of leftism, and when you're in a battle between good and evil, you'd better have a good weapon.

I also disavow anyone affiliated with the Democratic Party. Sorry Tulsi!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm renouncing libertarianism. It's an ineffectual weapon against the evil of leftism, and when you're in a battle between good and evil, you'd better have a good weapon.


Wanting to smoke weed allllllllllll day errrrrrrrrryday and own LOTS of guns ain't so bad 

Or useless


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Wanting to smoke weed allllllllllll day errrrrrrrrryday and own LOTS of guns ain't so bad
> 
> Or useless


Weed is fantastic. 

More people should be alive today to share it with.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/28/fire...e-test-deliberately-harder-white-men-8402291/



> One of the county’s biggest fire services has been accused of discrimination after it emerged white men have to score higher in its recruitment tests than anyone else. West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service wants 60% of new recruits to be women, and 35% to be from black and minority ethnic groups by 2021. In a bid to reach the target, they have altered the pass rates to make it easier for people from those groups to get through the test.
> 
> *Women and men from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups only have to score 60% on verbal and numerical tests – where as white men have to score 70%. A senior source claims the new recruitment programme, introduced in late 2017, costs £100,000 a year.*
> 
> *This includes £2,500 a month spent on targeted Facebook adverts which just appear on the profiles belonging to women to ‘minimise white men applying’, the source said. He claims West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service is the first brigade in the UK to introduce the tactic.* He said: ‘This directly discriminates against white men. ‘This approach was intentionally adopted to directly manipulate the diversity figures to meet the targets.
> 
> ‘This approach to recruitment is appalling. ‘Not only are they discriminating against large parts of my community, but they are also using huge amounts of public money to do so. ‘There is such a negative culture within management who want to achieve their own agendas at all costs.
> 
> ‘I have never heard of discrimination on such an industrial scale in the public sector. ‘It’s not fair on the members of the community who rightly expect the best people for the job being selected to serve on the front line.
> 
> ‘It’s difficult to swallow knowing people have not been able to achieve their dream careers because they are too white or too male. ‘There should, of course, be measures put in place to encourage those from underrepresented groups to apply, but how would they feel if they found out they were required to perform at a lesser level because of their gender or ethnicity? ‘It’s just so unfair on everyone applying to become a firefighter, the community and even the firefighters that serve alongside these people. ‘The sad fact is there are people sitting on fire engines today purely because of their gender or ethnicity and I don’t understand how any fire service leader is comfortable with that as an approach.’
> 
> The new recruitment process started in September 2017. It sees recruiters dip into the pool of applicants every three months and choose 1,000 people to be shortlisted for the first stage – a 45 minute test into reactions. Candidates who pass the tests are then sent a link to the numerical, verbal and mechanical reasoning exam.
> 
> But since the change,* white men have to score seven out of 10 to get through to the next stage – a physical test – while women and BME candidates only have to score six. The source claims as part of the drive, the brigade has ‘intentionally’ not posted general adverts on job boards, in favour of women-targeted Facebook adverts. He added: ‘There is intentionally no general adverts anywhere like job boards of the brigades own social media, in order to minimise white men applying. ‘This is because historically, general non-targeted adverts lead to large amounts of white male applicants.’* A spokesman for the West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service, said: ‘West Midlands Fire Service is committed to a having a workforce which reflects the diversity of the population of all our communities, and one that is welcoming to all. ‘We are also extremely proud to have been ranked second in this year’s Top 50 UK Employers List, which recognises our continuing commitment to workplace diversity. ‘Our recruitment shows our determination to challenge outdated perceptions about who can – and can’t – be a firefighter.
> 
> ‘We are working hard to break down barriers faced by people who could bring so much to our service and to their community. ‘Our work to attract more firefighters who are women or from minority backgrounds has been praised by the Government. ‘The approaches we take for recruitment and selection are carefully considered to ensure that they are appropriate, balanced and above all legal.’


It's one thing to have affirmative action or quotas to try and meet so called diversity in the workplace which is bad enough because automatically you're going to have some people hired not because they are the best person for the job but because they happen to fit a certain race, ethnicity or gender that is wanted in the workforce regardless of ability.

It is quite another to deliberately make the tests more difficult specifically for one group of people because you want less of them working in your field. There's a word to describe that, I wonder what it is?

Not to mention the last thing that is important for a job such as firefighting is fucking diversity based on arbitrary characteristics considering how physically demanding the job is where you have to be incredibly fit and athletic, where the people doing the job are putting their lives on the line everyday for the sake of other people in the community. It should be a no brainer but professions such as the armed forces, the police, firefighting etc. are too important to not be decided strictly on the best candidates because of the level of demand they require.

What makes this worse is taxpayer money is going towards this utter nonsense.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Another #BLEXIT video I found interesting.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I wonder why Americans worry so much about Muslims half way around the world when they have people as bad as Islamists right here in America?










I know it's an old story but it doesn't change the fact that these are the same people who throw histrionics over Muslims while they hold the same beliefs as some Muslims do.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

wtf is going on with Empire actor Jussie Smollett

First it was two white guys attacked him yelling "THIS IS MAGA COUNTRY" (in Chicago?) + racial and homophobic slurs, beating him up and pouring bleach on him and putting a rope around his neck. Chicago PD said he didn't tell them about the MAGA line in his initial interview. They heard that claim from the media, contacted Smollett, and he said in that follow-up interview that they did say that. According to him they were wearing gloves and ski masks and he couldn't identify their race. When police initially reached Smollett he still had the rope around his neck and it is in police possession. Chicago PD says it has reviewed hundreds of hours of surveillance footage and has footage of Smollet inside a Subway and footage of him at the alleged scene of the crime, but no footage of anyone else there or of the assault itself.

There has been some speculation that I don't want to lend credence to because it is entirely speculation and almost certainly bad faith speculation, but it says that Smollett was cruising for gay prostitutes (Smollett is gay), found some, and got beat up and robbed by them

The only confirmed thing is that he _was_ attacked pretty viciously, at least physically

Strange story

update they got footage of two "persons of interest" and Smollett's music manager said he was on the phone with Smollett when the attack happened and backed up everything Smollett said, they're checking phone records

https://abc7chicago.com/video-shows...st-in-empire-actor-attack-police-say/5113489/


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Rolo Tomassi said:


> Stuff


We want to break down barriers but also raise new ones for other people.

Makes sense.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091034779770863616
This clown. :lol Never mind that Asian and Jewish men earn more than Whites. Never mind that the wage gap doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful because people make different career choices, some of which are more lucrative than others. Never mind that it's already illegal for businesses to discriminate based on race or sex. It's all about playing identity politics and bashing everybody's favorite target - white American males.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Of course Bernie speaks nothing of the mass killing necessary to implement communism in the first place, because while people can be communists in a capitalist society, people can't be capitalists in a communist society. It's a bankrupt ideology with violence as its central operating mechanism. Capitalism is infinitely better. It's so good we can all debate about it from our laptops and smart phones. :lol
> 
> Speaking of mass killings, let's talk about the Democrats and abortion.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090446344584478720
> Is it still a clump of cells at 40 weeks? If not, when did the change occur, exactly?
> 
> What is it with leftists and death? Eat the capitalists. Abort the babies. Better we all starve to death than allow some of us to be rich while most of us do just OK.
> 
> It's clear why envy is a cardinal sin in Christianity, given how alluring leftist policies are to our lizard brains (now featuring monkey expansion pack) despite the mass graves and countless lives that never got to have their chance to impact this world. The wages of sin are death. How prophetic.


I have to admit, one of your better troll posts. 3.5/5. A bit more editing and it could've been a classic.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091034779770863616
> This clown. :lol Never mind that Asian and Jewish men earn more than Whites. Never mind that the wage gap doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful because people make different career choices, some of which are more lucrative than others. *Never mind that it's already illegal for businesses to discriminate based on race or sex.* It's all about playing identity politics and bashing everybody's favorite target - white American males.


Well yes I agree that it's prudent to mention stats on Asian and Jewish men for example if you're going to go down that pay gap role. I would expect however that because whites are the overwhelming majority of the society (rather than a small percentage of Asian and Jewish background) is more why it's the focus. I don't believe it's all part of bashing the poor white man - that's a distraction.

Based on the bolded point if nothing else, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That's kind of the point. It's more about making it illegal, awareness for example of it is important too. That may reduce incidences of unfair decisions based on implicit prejudices we all have in one way or another.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Tom Brokaw keeps his job at NBC after apologizing for making racially insensitive remarks while Megyn Kelly was fired for it. Funny how that works.
> 
> - Vic


Nothing he said was offensive or wrong, the Truth is not allowed anymore.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I know Hispanics who agree with what Tom Brokaw said. :lol That said, not a great idea to voice that opinion as a white man. Tsk, tsk.


----------



## Adam Cool

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I know Hispanics who agree with what Tom Brokaw said. :lol That said, not a great idea to voice that opinion as a white man. Tsk, tsk.


It's hillarious how so many white liberals "speak on behalf of minorities" and get offended if an actual minority calls them out on it


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091034779770863616
> This clown. :lol Never mind that Asian and Jewish men earn more than Whites. Never mind that the wage gap doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful because people make different career choices, some of which are more lucrative than others. Never mind that it's already illegal for businesses to discriminate based on race or sex. It's all about playing identity politics and bashing everybody's favorite target - white American males.


bernie is just pandering to his comrades. 

three biggest clowns in politics right now:

1. AOC
2. Bernie
3. Pocahontas


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Adam Cool said:


> It's hillarious how so many white liberals "speak on behalf of minorities" and get offended if an actual minority calls them out on it


What do you expect from people that will dumb down their language when talking to POC. These people are the real white supremacists


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> What do you expect from people that will dumb down their when talking to POC. These people are the real white supremacists


it's embarrassing that the term 'POC' has even made it's way back into public discourse. we are right back to calling blacks colored people. it's disgusting.

we are ALL colored. if black is a color then white is a color. when people say POC what they really mean is 'non white people'. it's so slimy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> bernie is just pandering to his comrades.
> 
> three biggest clowns in politics right now:
> 
> 1. AOC
> 2. Bernie
> 3. Pocahontas


LOL yeah, three of the most popular politicians in the country. But of course you think they are clowns based on who you support lol


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL yeah, three of the most popular politicians in the country. But of course you think they are clowns based on who you support lol


you can be popular and also still be a clown.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> it's embarrassing that the term 'POC' has even made it's way back into public discourse. we are right back to calling blacks colored people. it's disgusting.
> 
> we are ALL colored. if black is a color then white is a color. when people say POC what they really mean is 'non white people'. it's so slimy.


Fair point


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> bernie is just pandering to his comrades.
> 
> three biggest clowns in politics right now:
> 
> 1. AOC
> 2. Bernie
> 3. Pocahontas


AOC is going to be president.

I used to think that people would get tired of her act at some point, but she literally just says and does whatever she wants, and no one cares.

The other two have many more detractors


----------



## Aincrad

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I used to think that people would get tired of her act at some point, but she literally just says and does whatever she wants, and no one cares.


The politician of yesteryear was built on good PR and by appearing to be a perfect paragon of whatever it was they were representing. Trump and probably somewhat Bernie changed the game, people would rather a politician speak the truth and be more authentic no matter what that authenticity entails then be a carefully cultivated suit, because you at least know what they actually want to accomplish, whereas the sentient corporate PR campaign is hollow.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> *AOC is going to be president.*
> 
> I used to think that people would get tired of her act at some point, but she literally just says and does whatever she wants, and no one cares.
> 
> The other two have many more detractors


her resistance would be fierce. the country would split in two.

divide and conquer.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> her resistance would be fierce. t*he country would split in two.*
> 
> divide and conquer.


Trump already caused this


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> her resistance would be fierce. the country would split in two.
> 
> divide and conquer.


Honestly, by the time she can run, people may be tired of her shtick.

But anyone who thinks she is going away like a fart in the wind, is easily mistaken.

And forget the country, her own party is already split.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Honestly, by the time she can run, people may be tired of her shtick.
> 
> But anyone who thinks she is going away like a fart in the wind, is easily mistaken.
> 
> And forget the country, her own party is already split.


 don't see most people (that are supporting her)getting tired of seeing her stand up to the establishment. She is only going to get more and more of a following.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> don't see most people (that are supporting her)getting tired of seeing her stand up to the establishment. She is only going to get more and more of a following.


We talked about this yesterday...

She is still new.

She has 9 years before a presidential election comes up and she will be able to run.

Obviously I am hedging my best by saying people may get tired of her, and that she will be president.

but there is still time for someone to come by and unseat her.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Cortez would get destroyed by her own party long before she'd have the chance to become president. And thats if she doesn't flat out sell out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Cortez would get destroyed by her own party long before she'd have the chance to become president. And thats if she doesn't flat out sell out.


The democrat party is already changing and getting more and more progressive because of all the new people like AOC and Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren. By 2020 its going to move in that direction even more. in 9-12 years AOC will be the leader fo the democratic party

There is a reason why the establishment democrats are scared of people like AOC.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump already caused this


the country is not split in two. no one is taking to the streets and causing mayhem except fringe groups in isolated pockets. we are still a united 50 states. everyday americans are still living their lives.

if AOC is ever voted president and has a chance to enact her ideas and her policies, you would see the country at *actual* war. because unlike the metaphorical hyperbolic nonsense you like to talk about trump, america would become an *actual* hellhole and an extremely large component of the country wouldn't stand for it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> the country is not split in two. no one is taking to the streets and causing mayhem except fringe groups in isolated pockets. we are still a united 50 states. everyday americans are still living their lives.
> 
> if AOC is ever voted president and has a chance to enact her ideas and her policies, you would see the country at *actual* war. because unlike the metaphorical hyperbolic nonsense you like to talk about trump, america would become an *actual* hellhole and an extremely large component of the country wouldn't stand for it.



Lol. The majority of the country agrees with her policies. There's a reason she so popular.

so tell me exactly what policies of hers would cause the majority of the country to revolt


----------



## Aincrad

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

If America didn't go to civil war over a black man being President, they're not going to go to civil war over anything


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> the country is not split in two. no one is taking to the streets and causing mayhem except fringe groups in isolated pockets. we are still a united 50 states. everyday americans are still living their lives.
> 
> if AOC is ever voted president and has a chance to enact her ideas and her policies, you would see the country at *actual* war. because unlike the metaphorical hyperbolic nonsense you like to talk about trump, america would become an *actual* hellhole and an extremely large component of the country wouldn't stand for it.


:lmao

no there wouldn't. by the time aoc becomes president, her biggest opposition will be baby boomers shitting themselves in the retirement home. by the time they make it to the streets in their electric scooters, they'll have forgotten what they went out for and turn back around. :lmao

the average joe's not going to start a war over free healthcare, free college, and democracy in the workplace. maybe a few right-wing fringe lunatics will commit domestic terrorism, but we already have that going on now.

get the fuck outta here with your deranged murder fantasies because you hate democracy.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> the country is not split in two. no one is taking to the streets and causing mayhem except fringe groups in isolated pockets. we are still a united 50 states. everyday americans are still living their lives.
> 
> if AOC is ever voted president and has a chance to enact her ideas and her policies, you would see the country at *actual* war. because unlike the metaphorical hyperbolic nonsense you like to talk about trump, america would become an *actual* hellhole and an extremely large component of the country wouldn't stand for it.


My god you are so desperate aren't you. You've now attained gimmick status.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Saw this on Reddit. From the Personal Finance subreddit. Of course it could all be made up bullshit, but it sounds real enough. Perfect example of people in this country having no fucking clue how our taxes work.



> There has been a lot of misinformation on credible news sources regarding ways to "avoid moving into the next tax bracket". I've seen things about putting your money in a 401k, and IRA, an insurance fund. These aren't bad ideas, but they won't help you pay less taxes on the rest of your taxable income. If you live in the US, please educate yourself on the marginal tax system before listening to any of these articles.
> 
> So my co-worker, snidely grinning, explained how much smarter than me he was by turning down his yearly bonus because it would have put him from a 22% tax bracket into a 24%. He even showed me the article he read that explained the tactic that only geniuses like him know about. I seriously thought he was joking at first and eventually had to say the fateful words that started the 2 hour debate: "you know that's not how it works, right?"
> 
> We ended up calling his uncle, who owned 4 buy-and-hold rental properties. His aunt eventually got involved over speakerphone - They both backed him up completely and even praised him for his genius. I went on to get a CPA friend of mine on the phone and he laughed out loud for a good 30 seconds.
> 
> This is the saddest part: We both Googled the matter and he was able to find almost as many articles that backed up his argument as I was able to find articles that explained reality.
> 
> Toward the end of the 2 hour argument, he absolutely didn't agree with me, but I could tell he realized he'd messed up. He ended it with "lets just chalk it up to semantics...". The next morning he stopped me in the hall and thanked me for the lively debate the evening before, to which I replied "Hey I love debating, I learn something new every time I debate" (just to make him feel better), and he replied with "Well I didn't learn anything, but yeah... that was fun...". SMH


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DaRealNugget said:


> :lmao
> 
> no there wouldn't. by the time aoc becomes president, her biggest opposition will be baby boomers shitting themselves in the retirement home. by the time they make it to the streets in their electric scooters, they'll have forgotten what they went out for and turn back around. :lmao
> 
> the average joe's not going to start a war over free healthcare, free college, and democracy in the workplace. maybe a few right-wing fringe lunatics will commit domestic terrorism, but we already have that going on now.
> 
> get the fuck outta here with your deranged murder fantasies because you hate democracy.


Hmmm, I dunno, if you start levying massive tax increases or start appropriating wealth/property, you may have big problem. The issue with the 'pie in the sky' stuff is that it has to be paid for and that's why a balance between liberal and conservative is essential.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> Hmmm, I dunno, if you start levying massive tax increases or start appropriating wealth/property, you may have big problem. The issue with the 'pie in the sky' stuff is that it has to be paid for and that's why a balance between liberal and conservative is essential.


Well from a FOX news poll, it looks like most people are ok with increasing taxes on the rich and these are fox news polls

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...xing-the-wealthy-increasing-domestic-spending


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> Cortez would get destroyed by her own party long before she'd have the chance to become president. And thats if she doesn't flat out sell out.


This. Even the liberal media is not keen on making her look good. 

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> This. Even the liberal media is not keen on making her look good.
> 
> - Vic


The real liberal loves her.

Please stop pretending CNN and MNSBC is liberal.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Well from a FOX news poll, it looks like most people are ok with increasing taxes on the rich and these are fox news polls
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...xing-the-wealthy-increasing-domestic-spending


That doesn't equate to being a good/practical idea...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> That doesn't equate to being a good/practical idea...


Why isn't it a good/practical idea? From the 30s to the 80s the marginal tax rate was between 70-90% and it was the most prosperous time the US ever had.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why isn't it a good/practical idea? From the 30s to the 80s the marginal tax rate was between 70-90% and it was the most prosperous time the US ever had.


Define most prosperous...


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why isn't it a good/practical idea? From the 30s to the 80s the marginal tax rate was between 70-90% and it was the most prosperous time the US ever had.


OK, so let's say you somehow manage to appropriate this wealth...now what? What happens when the rich aren't rich anymore? What happens to industry? Do you really think it's going to eliminate the gap or is it just shifting the disparity elsewhere? Will AOC be standing in the breadline besides you?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Define most prosperous...


When the US had its top economic growth, 



777 said:


> OK, so let's say you somehow manage to appropriate this wealth...now what? What happens when the rich aren't rich anymore? What happens to industry? Do you really think it's going to eliminate the gap or is it just shifting the disparity elsewhere? Will AOC be standing in the breadline besides you?


What are you talking about? The rich will still be rich. The marginal tax rate only effects what people make over $10 million.

So are you going to claim they won't still be rich if the marginal tax rate goes up to 70% even with the first 10 million still be taxed at the same rate it is now?

When the marginal tax rate was at 70-90% the rich were still rich and the middle class was way better off. 

Not to mention making the marginal tax rate 70% will cause the rich to put money back into their companies because anything over 10 million will be taxed more, so they will put it back into their companies instead of letting it be taxed more.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What are you talking about? The rich will still be rich. The marginal tax rate only effects what people make over $10 million.
> 
> So are you going to claim they won't still be rich if the marginal tax rate goes up to 70% even with the first 10 million still be taxed at the same rate it is now?
> 
> When the marginal tax rate was at 70-90% the rich were still rich and the middle class was way better off.
> 
> Not to mention making the marginal tax rate 70% will cause the rich to put money back into their companies because anything over 10 million will be taxed more, so they will put it back into their companies instead of letting it be taxed more.


If you keep cutting off the top, the bulk keeps getting smaller and smaller. Eventually you'd need to keep lowering the threshold and sooner or later everyone feels the pinch. Why would anyone strive to succeed if you're only going to get punished for it? 

I'm not arguing against social policy, but it has to be approached in a reasonable manner.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> If you keep cutting off the top, the bulk keeps getting smaller and smaller. Eventually you'd need to keep lowering the threshold and sooner or later everyone feels the pinch. Why would anyone strive to succeed if you're only going to get punished for it?
> 
> I'm not arguing against social policy, but it has to be approached in a reasonable manner.


Did people strive to succeed when the marginal tax rate was between 70-90%? Yes, they did. So what you are claiming does not happen. People won't stop trying to succeed. Nice try


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Did people strive to succeed when the marginal tax rate was between 70-90%? Yes, they did. So what you are claiming does not happen. People won't stop trying to succeed. Nice try


Yes, they did strive to succeed and here we are, not getting taxed at that rate.

And here we are without a 70-90% tax rate, and you imagine implementing that now isn't going to result in disaster?

Edit: Gotta run. Would love to continue later though.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

DaRealNugget said:


> :lmao
> 
> no there wouldn't. by the time aoc becomes president, her biggest opposition will be baby boomers shitting themselves in the retirement home. by the time they make it to the streets in their electric scooters, they'll have forgotten what they went out for and turn back around. :lmao
> 
> *the average joe's not going to start a war over free healthcare, free college,* and democracy in the workplace. maybe a few right-wing fringe lunatics will commit domestic terrorism, but we already have that going on now.
> 
> get the fuck outta here with your deranged murder fantasies because you hate democracy.


you mean the average joe is going to be *paying* for that healthcare and that college.

no such thing as free.



777 said:


> Yes, they did strive to succeed and here we are, not getting taxed at that rate.
> 
> And here we are without a 70-90% tax rate, and you imagine implementing that now isn't going to result in disaster?
> 
> Edit: Gotta run. Would love to continue later though.



"just admit you support human genocide"

- BM when unable to provide a sound counterargument.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> Yes, they did strive to succeed and here we are, not getting taxed at that rate.
> 
> And here we are without a 70-90% tax rate, and you imagine implementing that now isn't going to result in disaster?
> 
> Edit: Gotta run. Would love to continue later though.


Why would it result in disaster We have already seen cutting taxes for the rich is what really ends up in disaster. The tax cuts did nothing to help the middle class, working class and poor, it didnt save jobs or any of the things the GOP claimed it would do.

In the past raising taxes and having a high marginal tax rate always works. 




Berzerker's Beard said:


> "just admit you support human genocide"
> 
> - BM when unable to provide a sound counterargument.


LOL, I have a sound argument. The US already did this in the past and it worked out great

You can't get more sound than that.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why would it result in disaster We have already seen cutting taxes for the rich is what really ends up in disaster. The tax cuts did nothing to help the middle class, working class and poor, it didnt save jobs or any of the things the GOP claimed it would do.
> 
> In the past raising taxes and having a high marginal tax rate always works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I have a sound argument. The US already did this in the past and it worked out great
> 
> You can't get more sound than that.


oh please no one was paying 90% in taxes. it was the top marginal rate but there were plenty of deductions allowed back then that no longer exist. the top 1% was realistically paying out about 40% of their income in taxes.

rich people were not just handing over all their money, and it is unreasonable and immoral to expect them to.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

A little late for that ehh?



> Elizabeth Warren has reportedly apologised for previously relying on a DNA test to prove her Native American ancestry.
> 
> The Massachusetts senator “reached out to us and has apologised to the tribe”, Cherokee Nation spokeswoman Julie Hubbard said in a statement relayed by CNN. The Independent has contacted Ms Hubbard and Ms Warren's team for more information.
> 
> Ms Warren publicised the results of a DNA test she had taken in October last year. In a video, she could be heard talking with Stanford University genetics professor Carlos Bustamante, who told her the results of the test suggest she “absolutely” has Native American ancestry.
> 
> The test, and Ms Warren’s decision to make its results public, led to backlash, including from Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr who said at the time in a statement: “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong.
> 
> “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
> 
> 
> 
> Ms Hubbard said the tribe views Ms Warren’s reported apology as a hopeful sign.
> 
> “We are encouraged by this dialogue and understanding that being a Cherokee Nation tribal citizen is rooted in centuries of culture and laws not through DNA tests,” she added in her statement. “We are encouraged by her action and hope that the slurs and mockery of tribal citizens and Indian history and heritage will now come to an end.”
> 
> Ms Warren publicised the results of her DNA test in response to Donald Trump, who has frequently mocked the senator’s references to her Native American heritage – at one point referring to Ms Warren as “Pocahontas”.
> 
> She is expected to officially announce her candidacy for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination on 9 February, having opened her presidential exploratory committee a month ago.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elizabeth-warren-dna-test-native-american-cherokee-nation-president-bid-2020-a8759331.html


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> This. Even the liberal media is not keen on making her look good.
> 
> - Vic


You consider the CNN aka the Kamala Harris network actual liberals? They're a corporate network that old computer illiterates watch.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'm always a little irked at how the word 'liberal' has been bastardized beyond all recognition of it's original meaning.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*










FINALLY. Someone in power has the balls to call this country dystopian. 

I LOVE HER.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092303280963813377
Yep. :lol


----------



## Odo

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Thinking you're entitled to someone elses money because they have more than you :heston


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Odo said:


> Thinking you're entitled to someone elses money because they have more than you :heston


Thinking that "ownership" of money has a clearly defined "private" property barrier based on capitalists stealing money involuntarily by jacking up the prices of necessities where the choice is either pay up or die. There's plenty of ways to actively see how exploitation works in the capitalist system, but your masters tell you what to think so your brain cannot fathom seeing capitalism in any other light. There is no private ownership of "money" when acquisition of that money is in creating a system that innately exploits those with need. 

Sounds like stealing to me, but I know you're not capable of seeing it that way. Just because your brain hasn't been taught since childhood to see capitalist exploitation as exploitation, you're incapable of interpreting that way for yourself.


----------



## Odo

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Thinking that capitalism is theft, but socialism is moral :heston


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Odo said:


> Thinking that capitalism is theft, but socialism is moral :heston


Says that while enjoying the benefits of "socialism" himself. Commenting on the problems of Americans while enjoying free healthcare himself. Everyone that lives in a "socialist" country (funny how you people don't even know the meaning of the word and still talk about it) should probably give it up before demanding that we don't demand a reasonable social welfare state in america first :mj4

Next time you go to the doctor, pay out of pocket. In fact, you should stay at home if you need a surgery because aren't you from the UK? Thinking that morals only apply to others, but not yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## Odo

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Says that while enjoying the benefits of "socialism" himself. Commenting on the problems of Americans while enjoying free healthcare himself. Everyone that lives in a "socialist" country (funny how you people don't even know the meaning of the word and still talk about it) should probably give it up before demanding that we don't demand a reasonable social welfare state in america first :mj4
> 
> Next time you go to the doctor, pay out of pocket. In fact, you should stay at home if you need a surgery because aren't you from the UK? Thinking that morals only apply to others, but not yourself.


If I could, Id dismantle the NHS tomorrow :draper2

I actively vote for a party that moves towards the privatisation of it. Sadly, my point of view is firmly in the minority in this country, as peoples general MO is to believe the government owes them everything. As I am compelled at metaphorical gunpoint to hand over approx 1/3 of what I earn, and have been for the last 15 years to the government, Im damn well going to use the service that money props up, even if the service itself is a sprawling mess

Free healthcare? Get the fuck out


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Odo said:


> If I could, Id dismantle the NHS tomorrow :draper2


Your country has a two-tier system where you can pay private. Next time you need treatment, pay for it. Send your kinds only to private schools. 

You have options. But you're also a leech and you just don't want to admit. If you had any morality whatsoever you would refuse to utilize government services. 

Practice what you preach. 

It's awfully convenient that you don't have to so you don't, but demand that everyone else hold themselves up to your arbitrary moral standards, while you're likely just as much of a hypocrite yourself. 



> I actively vote for a party that moves towards the privatisation of it.


Yea. People like you are too incapable of having the foresight to imagine that once private tyranny is installed that you will also end up in the same kind of exploited shithole as America. Shore up the private corporations. See your country turn into a bigger mess. 

But lacking foresight doesn't mean that you're right. 



> Sadly, my point of view is firmly in the minority in this country, as peoples general MO is to believe the government owes them everything.


"The government" doesn't do anything. That's a huge part of the problem. Most people tend to see a "government" as a separate body because that's what it's become. The "government" is supposed to be comprised of individuals who are more than capable of creating systems which minimize suffering for everyone. 

In any case, the government doesn't own anyone anything. The fact is that *money* itself is an arbitrary creation and given how capitalism is practiced there is no such thing as private property unless it's arbitrarily defined as well. Most capitalists today are not even profiting off of their own ideas. 

Most capitalists especially in the American Pharma are simply racketeering based on favorable government policies and exploiting people's needs. It's not just the price of one or two drugs. It's the price of everything overall. 

Demand/Supply economics do not apply to monopolistic practices. Social Welfare States do not destroy or hurt capitalism, they simply allow individuals to benefit from their own labor by forcing the government to determine what is fair pay because capitalists do not do that. 

Allowing capitalists to determine what is fair pay is a terrible idea and in several major industries it has created severe pockets of exploitation. A social welfare state simply nullifies some of that damage. 

Capitalists steal from workers, "workers" steal it right back, it does create a situation of two wrongs making a right and I'm ok with that. 



> As I am compelled at metaphorical gunpoint to hand over approx 1/3 of what I earn, and have been for the last 15 years to the government, Im damn well going to use the service that money props up, even if the service itself is a sprawling mess


Everyone pays taxes since everything we ever consumed is taxed and taxed and taxed again and again. Only a small amount of people don't pay *any* taxes. So everyone benefits from taxes paid by someone wealthier than you. You benefit from the taxes someone else is paying as well. 

But while I'm glad you have a sense of entitlement to the tax money you give, obviously you're really too scared to do the actual math and admit how much _you're_ stealing from others as well. You think that your stance is principled just because you make a bunch of internet posts and vote? Lol. 

Stop being a hypocrite. Pay for everything you haven't already paid for with your taxes. That would be principled. 



> Free healthcare? Get the fuck out


It's never going to be free obviously. But don't be a hypocrite and since you know nothing of the amount of exploitation and stealing of people's money that's happening america (through profiteering), you do not have the mental capacity to compare situations.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-catalyst/senator-sanders-to-ask-why-drug-once-free-now-costs-375k-idUSKCN1PT0ZJ?utm_source=applenews



> *Senator Sanders to ask why drug, once free, now costs $375k*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders plans to send a letter to Catalyst Pharmaceuticals (CPRX.O) on Monday asking it to justify its decision to charge $375,000 annually for a medication that for years has been available to patients for free.
> 
> The drug, Firdapse, is used to treat Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome (LEMS), a rare neuromuscular disorder, according to the letter, made available to Reuters by the senator’s office. The disorder affects about one in 100,000 people in the United States.
> 
> The government is intensifying its scrutiny of the pharmaceutical industry and rising prescription drug prices, a top voter concern and a priority of President Donald Trump’s administration.
> 
> Both the Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, controlled by Republicans, have begun holding hearings this year on the rising costs of medicines. Sanders is an independent who usually votes with Democrats.
> 
> In the letter dated Feb. 4, Sanders asked Catalyst to lay out the financial and non-financial factors that led the company to set the list price at $375,000, and say how many patients would suffer or die as a result of the price and how much it was paying to purchase or produce the drug.
> 
> For years, patients have been able to get Firdapse for free from Jacobus Pharmaceuticals, a small New Jersey-based drug company, which offered it through a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) program called “compassionate use.”
> 
> The program allows patients with rare diseases and conditions access to experimental drugs outside of a clinical trial when there is no viable alternative.
> 
> Florida-based Catalyst received FDA approval of Firdapse in November, along with exclusive rights to market the medication for several years. The company, which bought rights to the drug from a company called BioMarin in 2012, develops and commercializes drugs for rare diseases.
> 
> In December, Catalyst announced it would price Firdapse at $375,000 a year.
> 
> “Catalyst’s decision to set the annual list price at $375,000 is not only a blatant fleecing of American taxpayers, but is also an immoral exploitation of patients who need this medication,” Sanders wrote in his letter.
> 
> Sanders joins other U.S. lawmakers in investigating the pricing practices of pharmaceutical companies this year.
> 
> Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, in January wrote to 12 pharmaceutical firms asking for detailed information on how they set drug prices.
> 
> Democratic Representatives Frank Pallone and Diana DeGette wrote to the heads of Eli Lilly and Co (LLY.N), Novo Nordisk (NOVOb.CO) and Sanofi SA (SASY.PA), the long-time leading manufacturers of insulin, requesting information on why the drug’s price has skyrocketed in recent years.


This is why.

https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/04/05/jacobus-pharmaceuticals-martin-shkreli/



> *Opting to give away a drug for free*
> 
> Jacobus got into the LEMS market by accident.
> 
> More than 20 years ago, the company was approached by several doctors on behalf of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, which was funding researchers who hoped to produce a finished drug for a study. David Jacobus agreed to manufacture an experimental product.
> 
> The resulting drug proved effective for patients with LEMS, which is characterized by muscle weakness in the limbs. Jacobus Pharmaceuticals was willing to continue production, given that patients were benefiting.
> 
> Yet this was a tiny market and, at the time, drug companies did not typically charge the huge sums of money that are now commonplace for treatments of rare disorders. So the revenue potential seemed quite small.
> 
> And in order to sell the drug, which is called 3-4 Dap, at any price, the company would have had to invest in expensive clinical trials in order to win marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration. That, in turn, might have required Jacobus to set a higher price than the father-daughter team felt comfortable charging.
> 
> “As a society, we have to be willing to pay something for our medicines, but not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Laura Jacobus said.
> 
> “We had to choose,” she added.
> 
> “Of course, we want to make money. This is not a groovy socialist enterprise. But we also want to meet unmet medical needs.”
> 
> So the company opted to provide the drug to LEMS patients for free through a federal program called compassionate use.
> 
> *A jump into the rare disease market*
> 
> For years, the approach worked.
> 
> *But several years ago, BioMarin Pharmaceutical won the right to sell a slightly modified version of the drug in Europe. In 2012, BioMarin licensed it to Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, which hopes to enter the US market.
> 
> Since LEMS is a rare disease, Catalyst won an “orphan designation” from the FDA, which means it can have an exclusive right to sell its drug in the US for seven years — once it receives marketing approval from the agency. But doctors and patients worry that Catalyst could charge a high price and prevent Jacobus from giving away its medication.
> 
> Catalyst declined to discuss a projected price, but argues more patients would have access to the treatment if it wins FDA approval. It estimates the US market at about 3,000 patients, far more than the 200 who have been receiving LEMS for free from Jacobus.*
> 
> All this happened against the backdrop of soaring interest by the pharmaceutical industry in rare diseases such as LEMS.
> 
> The patient population for rare diseases is by definition small, but the market bears sky-high prices. For instance, the cystic fibrosis medicine Kalydeco is priced at nearly $287,000 a year, and the specialty cholesterol medication Juxtapid costs $367,000 a year, according to Truven Health Analytics.
> 
> Pushed by the Catalyst move, Jacobus decided to jump in to this highly lucrative market.
> 
> It launched clinical trials, racing against Catalyst to win FDA approval for the LEMS drug. If it wins approval, it would start marketing — and selling — the drug that it had long treated as a purely charitable program.


FDA picked the company that would charge the most. Wonder what could have influenced their decision.

:vince$


----------



## Draykorinee

Odo said:


> Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says that while enjoying the benefits of "socialism" himself. Commenting on the problems of Americans while enjoying free healthcare himself. Everyone that lives in a "socialist" country (funny how you people don't even know the meaning of the word and still talk about it) should probably give it up before demanding that we don't demand a reasonable social welfare state in america first <img src="https://i.imgur.com/PTgSHgD.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Next time you go to the doctor, pay out of pocket. In fact, you should stay at home if you need a surgery because aren't you from the UK? Thinking that morals only apply to others, but not yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> If I could, Id dismantle the NHS tomorrow <img src="http://i.imgur.com/7KU7Fqx.png" border="0" alt="" title="Draper" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> I actively vote for a party that moves towards the privatisation of it.
Click to expand...

No you don't. One of the things the Tories aren't actually doing is looking to privatise the NHS. Yes, they're sneakily getting private companies to run services but paid by the NHS, much like the Danish model (labour did that first mind) but you're dumb as fuck if you think the Tories would ever scrap the NHS and go to an American system. 

So no, you do not vote for a party that wants to privatise the NHS, because they don't exist.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Oh no. But the capitalists WANT to do the right thing and be fair and will create a fair system. It's the government that's MAKING them charge more for everything :mj



Draykorinee said:


> No you don't. One of the things the Tories aren't actually doing is looking to privatise the NHS. Yes, they're sneakily getting private companies to run services much like the Danish model (labour did that first mind) but you're dumb as fuck if you think the Tories would ever scrap the NHS and go to an American system.
> 
> So no, you do not vote for a party that wants to privatise the NHS, because they don't exist.


He has another choice. He can be a really principled conservative and calculate how much value he receives from the taxes he pays and then pay privately on top of that. No one's telling him not to. :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Oh no. But the capitalists WANT to do the right thing and be fair and will create a fair system. It's the government that's MAKING them charge more for everything <img src="https://i.imgur.com/0422WLX.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" />


Odo wants an inferior system in nearly every metric just so he can grandstand about having to pay taxes. You Damn well know the minute him or a loved one needs medical treatment he'll be glad he didn't have to pay. 

Or maybe he's one of these people who enjoys having the statistic of tens of millions of people not having healthcare and the number one cause of bankruptcy being healthcare costs.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> .
> 
> Or maybe he's one of these people who enjoys having the statistic of tens of millions of people not having healthcare and the number one cause of bankruptcy being healthcare costs.


Probably not that callous. I think it's more like "hey I paid some of it therefore it's ok to feel entitled to all of it".

He also has no foresight whatsoever nor any idea of his own country's history during the unregulated free market era of early industrialization. Or simply pretends to ignore all of the benefits that accumulate over time. Simply taking them for granted.

People like him benefit from the labor movements of the past and are now brainwahsed to side with the industrialists once again like they're supposed to be his best friend or something.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> FINALLY. Someone in power has the balls to call this country dystopian.
> 
> I LOVE HER.


I'd hold off on any of that until 9-12 years from now.

Talk is cheap and AOC says some retarded stuff.

In fact for as much as Trump gets shit for the way he talks, AOC has some pretty silly moments where you're left wondering if she's an idiot or not.

We have to wait to see what she really is because Politicians like this popup all the time and then fall inline with the establishment.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I'd hold off on any of that until 9-12 years from now.
> 
> Talk is cheap and AOC says some retarded stuff.
> 
> In fact for as much as Trump gets shit for the way he talks, AOC has some pretty silly moments where you're left wondering if she's an idiot or not.
> 
> We have to wait to see what she really is because Politicians like this popup all the time and then fall inline with the establishment.


What does AOC say that is retarded


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What does AOC say that is retarded


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/9/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-medicare-for-all-can-save/



> “And what we’re also not talking about is why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can’t afford access to health care? That is part of the cost of our system. “


Health care has nothing to do with the costs of funerals.

Caskets aren't going down in price because people have health care.

That's retarded to say


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/9/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-medicare-for-all-can-save/
> 
> 
> 
> Health care has nothing to do with the costs of funerals.
> 
> Caskets aren't going down in price because people have health care.
> 
> That's retarded to say


She is saying maybe we should put funeral costs as a part of healthcare coverage under medicare for all.

That is not retarded fhat is actually a good idea


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> She is saying maybe we should put funeral costs as a part of healthcare coverage under medicare for all.
> 
> That is not retarded fhat is actually a good idea


You hurt yourself stretching that much?

How would funeral costs be implemented in a medicare for all plan, considering everyone has different funeral costs? Do you even know how much an average funeral costs?

Or do you think every funeral costs the same price?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You hurt yourself stretching that much?
> 
> How would funeral costs be implemented in a medicare for all plan, considering everyone has different funeral costs?
> 
> Or do you think every funeral costs the same price?


How is it a stretch, its what she was saying

Because you would get a set amount to help cover the costs. Just like you do for insurance.

Not all surgeries cost the same either do they.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is it a stretch, its what she was saying
> 
> Because you would get a set amount to help cover the costs. Just like you do for insurance.
> 
> Not all surgeries cost the same either do they.


How many different type of funerals are there in your world?

There are tons of different surgeries.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> How many different type of funerals are there in your world?
> 
> There are tons of different surgeries.


We are talking about cost. You even said everyone has different funeral costs

Are you going back on that now?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> We are talking about cost. You even said everyone has different funeral costs
> 
> Are you going back on that now?


No, in fact everyone having different funeral costs is the exact reason the government shouldn't be involved.

How would that work under this system, I mean I am sure if you think it is a good idea, you know how it would go

Just a lady sitting in a room, upset her husband of 30 years finally succumbed to death, and she is crying sitting around with family and friends, and then Joey Government walks in and says "Oh, hate to be the person telling you this ma'am, but you used up your budget, so we can't put your husband in that urn you wanted to put him in... but we will cover the hole, and get him cremated for ya, any questions? No? Ok, have a great day"


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> No, in fact everyone having different funeral costs is the exact reason the government shouldn't be involved.
> 
> How would that work under this system, I mean I am sure if you think it is a good idea, you know how it would go
> 
> Just a lady sitting in a room, upset her husband of 30 years finally succumbed to death, and she is crying sitting around with family and friends, and then Joey Government walks in and says "Oh, hate to be the person telling you this ma'am, but you used up your budget, so we can't put your husband in that urn you wanted to put him in... but we will cover the hole, and get him cremated for ya, any questions? No? Ok, have a great day"


It's not covered now, so anything extra would be a bonus to help them.

You give them a set amount to help cover the costs of the funeral. 

The average funeral costs is about $6,000-$10,000.. So if insurance paid out $5,000 to help pay for the funeral that is bad over getting zero now?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's not covered now, so anything extra would be a bonus to help them.
> 
> You give them a set amount to help cover the costs of the funeral.
> 
> The average funeral costs is about $6,000-$10,000.. So if insurance paid out $5,000 to help pay for the funeral that is bad over getting zero now?


Bonus to help who? What do you think people do for funerals now?

Yes, because the costs is unnecessary, and drives up a market value for a business that is in unlimited demand.

You are saying that everyone should get $5,000 for no other reason than "because people die"

Instead, there is life insurance, a federally and state regulated stipend that a person has a choice to purchase, for as much as they see fit to cover funeral expenses, and other expenses that comes with having a funeral, and the aftermaths.

there are multiple companies, and is sometimes included in your payroll check as a deduction you can already get (you work for a living, i am sure you know this)

And then what if a funeral costs 12k instead of 5, who pays for Mildred's blue roses that she always wanted since she was 6 years old and the doves she ordered?

I mean we don't want Mildred's family to not be upset, we just lost her

BTW: Average costs of a funeral is 7-9k. So you aren't even close there


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yes, because the costs is unnecessary, and drives up a market value for a business that is in unlimited demand.
> 
> You are saying that everyone should get $5,000 for no other reason than "because people die"
> 
> Instead, there is life insurance, a federally and state regulated stipend that a person has a choice to purchase, for as much as they see fit to cover funeral expenses, and other expenses that comes with having a funeral, and the aftermaths.
> 
> there are multiple companies, and is sometimes included in your payroll check as a deduction you can already get (you work for a living, i am sure you know this)
> 
> And then what if a funeral costs 12k instead of 5, who pays for Mildred's blue roses that she always wanted since she was 6 years old and the doves she ordered?
> 
> I mean we don't want Mildred's family to not be upset, we just lost her


If a funeral costs 12,000 instead of 5,000 they now only have to pay 7,000 unlike now where they would have to pay the full 12,000.

It's just weird you think getting 0 now and covering none of the expenses is better than getting 5,000 and covering some of the expenses

Since you are not making any sense. This is my last post on this


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> If a funeral costs 12,000 instead of 5,000 they now only have to pay 7,000 unlike now where they would have to pay the full 12,000.
> 
> It's just weird you think getting 0 now and covering none of the expenses is better than getting 5,000 and covering some of the expenses
> 
> Since you are not making any sense. This is my last post on this


Who are you you talking about when you say "they"

And if "they" didn't have 5k, what makes you think "they" magically has 7 

How do you think people get buried today.

And once again, i just explained it to you.... life insurance helps pay the costs of funerals. You are aware of what life insurance is? (this is rhetorical, i can't deal with any more of your nonsensical answers)

As well as death benefits from jobs, other insurance agencies, you sound you have no idea what happens when people die, and when I try to get you to explain it, you say "Well, give them money because they don't have any now"

It would be best for you to stop on this, you sound more ludicrous than AOC does.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's not covered now, so anything extra would be a bonus to help them.
> 
> You give them a set amount to help cover the costs of the funeral.
> 
> The average funeral costs is about $6,000-$10,000.. So if insurance paid out $5,000 to help pay for the funeral that is bad over getting zero now?


This would help because many times people leave debt because death is unexpected. Quite frankly the death industry is manipulative because so many fleece money off grieving people.

It shouldn't be half as expensive as it is.



birthday_massacre said:


> What does AOC say that is retarded


“One of the things that I admire so much about Leader Pelosi is that she comes from a space of activism and organizing and so I think she really appreciates civic engagement and really what I’m here to do is just to support the folks that are here,”

After bashing establishment Dems, let me guess she's playing 4d chess like Trump right?

Let's not forget she refuses to debate with anyone wants to challenge her policies or ideas. She's also as verbally articulate as Trump when it comes to her speaking which is funny because he gets bashed for that. She's a female Trump, all talk, no walk and people will gather to her because she "stands up for people and against the establishment". You know right after she kisses their asses, what was her thoughts on McCain? I forget because she kissed his ass too after he died.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






An infinitely better choice than Bernie cuckold Sanders.

But still a Democrat and thus complicit in killing babies. :draper2 Dealbreaker.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> An infinitely better choice than Bernie cuckold Sanders.
> 
> But still a Democrat and thus complicit in killing babies. :draper2 Dealbreaker.


I don't know if the difference between a stale old turd and a hot fresh turd is really "infinite."

Tulsi's faux anti interventionism fpalm

This bitch is against war the same way Ronald McDonald is against eating unhealthy


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Nah Tulsi's for real. Resigned from the DNC, didn't endorse Hillary, met with both Assad and Trump knowing the shit she'd take from her own party. 

Unfortunately for her the party she's pigeon-holed into is actually evil.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> An infinitely better choice than Bernie cuckold Sanders.
> 
> But still a Democrat and thus complicit in killing babies. :draper2 Dealbreaker.


"Yes we can..... kill more babies"
"It's time for a change.... to allow the killing of more and more babies"
"Make America... kill more babies"

Not bad slogans for a campaign IMO. The baby-murderer liberals will love it.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What does AOC say that is retarded


that being a billionaire is immoral.

that there should be no such thing as classes.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Nah Tulsi's for real. Resigned from the DNC, didn't endorse Hillary, met with both Assad and Trump knowing the shit she'd take from her own party.
> 
> Unfortunately for her the party she's pigeon-holed into is actually evil.


Yes Tulsi is for real.

For real drone strikes and kill squads liquidating people anytime, anywhere, along with whoever happens to be near them so long as some bureaucrat in Langley decides they're a terrorist. Although most of the time "whoever" happens to be their jihadi friends and jihadi families.

For real keeping the screws to Iran.

For real maintaining the bases spread over thousands of miles that are necessary to drop the hammer anywhere on earth within an hour or two. Or less. 

The reason she met with Assad is that she views Assad as an ally in the Forever War against jihadis (and whoever happens to be in their vicinity when the drones and SEAL teams show up). Same reason she likes Putin. 

Methinks you've missed some key statements and policy positions of the latest "anti-war" icon. Either that or "anti-war" just don't mean what it used to :draper2

Now I happen to agree with keeping the screws to Iran and liquidating jihadis and their friends and families who are laughably called "innocent" by useful idiots, but let's not pretend like Tulsi is some kind of opponent of the global security state/war machine. Her main foreign policy selling point is bringing Putin into the global security state club instead of putting up the "NO IVANS ALLOWED" sign on the door. Vladimir Putin, that noted non-interventionist :ha 

She's a female Obama. Lots of jaw-jaw about no war-war. But the war-war goes on because the jaw-jaw is meaningless fluff meant to secure buzz and votes.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

NY Times writer makes a complete ass of herself by going after Tulsi Gabbard on the Joe Rogan show. Pretty clear she's just regurgitating poorly memorized talking points. The cringe factor is high, but this is pretty illustrative of the culture of these establishment publications that are frequently at war with the president.






The New York Times, Washington Post, and the major news networks are not doing journalism. They are the communications wing of the deep state, and the deep state hates Trump because while they can get concessions out of him, they can't control him. Look at the Senate which just overwhelmingly voted to support the endless wars as Trump makes moves to end them. They don't care, they're bought and paid for. We don't have a representative system of government. The Russian probe is just a weapon of the deep state, and too many useful idiots are eating it up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> “One of the things that I admire so much about Leader Pelosi is that she comes from a space of activism and organizing and so I think she really appreciates civic engagement and really what I’m here to do is just to support the folks that are here,”
> 
> After bashing establishment Dems, let me guess she's playing 4d chess like Trump right?
> 
> Let's not forget she refuses to debate with anyone wants to challenge her policies or ideas. She's also as verbally articulate as Trump when it comes to her speaking which is funny because he gets bashed for that. She's a female Trump, all talk, no walk and people will gather to her because she "stands up for people and against the establishment". You know right after she kisses their asses, what was her thoughts on McCain? I forget because she kissed his ass too after he died.


Wasn't that quote about Pelosi talking about Pelosi pushing for renewable energy? And she was backing her on that? She also said, "If Pelosi fails to issue this mandate, it's time to step aside."

Not to mention AOC was protesting in Pelosi's office on her first day.

She also said This is not about personality, this is not about rebuke, it's not about confrontation. It's about making sure we are getting the job done,"

So way to take that quote out of context 

As for AOC not debating people, yeah she refuses to debate asshates like Ben Sharpio. Why should she debate intelligently dishonest people like him? Hell Sharpio ducks people all the time. 

And she is way more articulate than Trump. Don't make me laugh you think she is just as bad or worst than him. Is she the best, no but she is miles better than Trump.


Berzerker's Beard said:


> that being a billionaire is immoral.
> 
> that there should be no such thing as classes.


She did not say being a billionaire is immoral. she said a system that creates billions is an immoral system.

Meaning a system that allows 1% to own more wealth than the bottom 95% that is immoral.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> She did not say being a billionaire is immoral. she said a system that creates billions is an immoral system.
> 
> Meaning a system that allows 1% to own more wealth than the bottom 95% that is immoral.


did steve jobs deserve to be a billionaire?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

.


----------



## American_Nightmare

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Hawaii is currently trying to get a bill off the ground that would increase the legal cigarette purchase age to 30 next year, to 40 in 2021, to 50 in 2022, to 60 in 2023, and 100 in 2024. 

While I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, I have been tormented by second-hand smoking all throughout by family, friends, coworkers, and complete strangers. In 2006, Ohio tried to get this bill off the ground which would have banned smoking in public places and I personally would have loved to have voted in favor of that. I've been described by many as progressive, but I don't support prohibition of private activity. It's one thing to ban something from public consumption for public health reasons, but to dictate to people what they can or can't do to their own bodies? That's where the problem lies.

Hawaii is but one state, but we have plenty of precedence for why complete prohibition is a failure and only enriches the black market.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092807628147879939


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Just because a proposal is popular doesn't mean it's right. :draper2

Meanwhile, Bernie makes a fool of himself yet again:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092867167928897536


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092807628147879939


Idiotic tweet. What’s fair about taxing someone more because they make more? 

And just because something is popular doesn’t always mean it should be done. We’d all love 100 grand a year, but no matter how hard we vote for it, it will not happen.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> Idiotic tweet. What’s fair about taxing someone more because they make more?
> 
> And just because something is popular doesn’t always mean it should be done. We’d all love 100 grand a year, but no matter how hard we vote for it, it will not happen.


Thought it was funny they were blaming the poll numbers on fairness being taught to children.

Reminded me of when they ripped Mr. Rogers for teaching kids they were special.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Just because a proposal is popular doesn't mean it's right. :draper2
> 
> Meanwhile, Bernie makes a fool of himself yet again:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092867167928897536


How did he make a fool of himself? Its so weird how you just pretend Bernie makes a fool of himself when you defend Trump all the time.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

can't talk right now BM I'm on the phone


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Not saying it's false, but it the only proof of Bernie pretending to be on the phone the fact the guy says it is?

Even if he was, I don't blame him for doing it to avoid some idiot harassing him. I can't imaging you having any problem with T-Rump doing the same. 

It's kinda funny actually. I do it myself when trying to do dodgy shit or ignoring someone who's likely to bother me. It's a good time-tested tactic.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Wasn't that quote about Pelosi talking about Pelosi pushing for renewable energy? And she was backing her on that? She also said, "If Pelosi fails to issue this mandate, it's time to step aside."
> 
> Not to mention AOC was protesting in Pelosi's office on her first day.
> 
> She also said This is not about personality, this is not about rebuke, it's not about confrontation. It's about making sure we are getting the job done,"
> 
> So way to take that quote out of context
> 
> As for AOC not debating people, yeah she refuses to debate asshates like Ben Sharpio. Why should she debate intelligently dishonest people like him? Hell Sharpio ducks people all the time.
> 
> And she is way more articulate than Trump. Don't make me laugh you think she is just as bad or worst than him. Is she the best, no but she is miles better than Trump.


Luckily for us we'll have several years to see the results. It didn't take long for the anti-semitic sentiment of some of the women she was carrying on about to come out. People always show their true colors.

Yes her fumbling is much better than Trumps, like so much better nobody is better than her at being the not fumbling bestest. Careful, the amount of AOC riding sounds an awful like Trump supporter riding! 

I cannot believe how many fall for the AOC nonsense after bashing Trump supporters for the same stuff. I cannot believe how similar both are that it's scary. :laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Luckily for us we'll have several years to see the results. It didn't take long for the anti-semitic sentiment of some of the women she was carrying on about to come out. People always show their true colors.
> 
> Yes her fumbling is much better than Trumps, like so much better nobody is better than her at being the not fumbling bestest. Careful, the amount of AOC riding sounds an awful like Trump supporter riding!
> 
> I cannot believe how many fall for the AOC nonsense after bashing Trump supporters for the same stuff. I cannot believe how similar both are that it's scary. :laugh:


Because AOC is actually intelligent unlike Trump


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because AOC is actually intelligent unlike Trump


She's so smart she thinks the unemployment rate is low because people work multiple jobs :lol She's so smart she protested Mitch McConnel by going to the wrong office :lol She's so smart she thinks being factually correct doesn't matter :lol


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

AOC is a lot of things...but smart ain't one of em.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Bug-Eyes, the new Wendy Davis :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> She's so smart she thinks the unemployment rate is low because people work multiple jobs :lol She's so smart she protested Mitch McConnel by going to the wrong office :lol She's so smart she thinks being factually correct doesn't matter :lol


Shes still way smarter than Trump. And lol at using her walking into the wrong room as an example. The lengths people will go to to defend Trump


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Shes still way smarter than Trump. And lol at using her walking into the wrong room as an example. The lengths people will go to to defend Trump


Stop deflecting, my post was not a defense of Donald Trump. Also, she does everything you hate about Trump and you love her for it :lol You are a parody of yourself And you deny that you're a hypocrite? :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Stop deflecting, my post was not a defense of Donald Trump. Also, she does everything you hate about Trump and you love her for it :lol You are a parody of yourself And you deny that you're a hypocrite? :lol


She doesn’t do everything Trump does. Not even close. You take a few examples of her flubbing something and say omg shes like Trump. Where as those are few and far between but when it comes to Trump its all the time.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

AOC does everything we hate about Trump?

Not really seeing as we hate Trump for his consistent lies, his racist-lite policies, his wall etc.

The only thing AOC does that Trump does is use twitter to talk shit and occasionally make a goof.

Seems a nonsense thing to suggest.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> AOC does everything we hate about Trump?
> 
> Not really seeing as we hate Trump for his consistent lies, his racist-lite policies, his wall etc.
> 
> The only thing AOC does that Trump does is use twitter to talk shit and occasionally make a goof.
> 
> Seems a nonsense thing to suggest.


She also shares with him the thinking that if you really really really really REALLY want something to work, it will work regardless of anything and everything, just because you really really really REALLY want it to :draper2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






This woman is a complete disaster. 

But I'm glad though that at least the whole "oblivious white people" trope is at least improving as a result of the consistent campaign of outrage and dialogue that's now happening.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> This woman is a complete disaster.
> 
> But I'm glad though that at least the whole "oblivious white people" trope is at least improving as a result of the consistent campaign of outrage and dialogue that's now happening.


Indeed. This is effectively (and mercifully) the beginning of the end of her bid for the presidency. She has no way to dance around this issue when it's raised, she wasn't the greatest or most likable candidate to begin with, and the field is so crowded that she'll eventually be shunted aside. I hope, anyway.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Strike Force said:


> Indeed. This is effectively (and mercifully) the beginning of the end of her bid for the presidency. She has no way to dance around this issue when it's raised, she wasn't the greatest or most likable candidate to begin with, and the field is so crowded that she'll eventually be shunted aside. I hope, anyway.


Well she made a disaster of her own profile with the native indian thing .. I mean, it's not that she may not have had one ancestor that wasn't native indian --- it was her obliviousness to the fact that that just having had one interracial marriage in ones ancestry does not make that person a citizen. 

I think someone finally explained to her what citizenship to a native tribe means ... but can you imagine going through your entire life believing that you're part of a race and you're not and never bothering to care about the authenticity behind that claim and what it really means to be an actual minority where you're treated very differently simply because of the color of your skin. 

That said, as a politician she makes the worst corporatists afraid and that's also part of the reason why she's getting a more "objective" look than her other WAY more corrupt and horrifying democrat counter parts.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I think someone finally explained to her what citizenship to a native tribe means ... but can you imagine going through your entire life believing that you're part of a race and you're not and never bothering to care about the authenticity behind that claim and what it really means to be an actual minority where you're treated very differently simply because of the color of your skin.


In commercials for those (creepy) DNA testing companies, they make light of the fact that people often identify one way but are actually (from a background standpoint) something completely different.






I wonder whether identifying as "A" and finding out you're actually "B" is problematic if you admit you were wrong and own your true identity, whatever the hell that looks like. For some of us, it's relatively easy: all of my grandparents were immigrants (Argentina/Italy/Italy/Puerto Rico), so I have a pretty good sense of my makeup, although I'm sure there would be some surprises peppered in if I were stupid enough to hand my DNA over to a corporation.

She'll be raked over the coals for this and labeled a liar, but if she grew up being told (and believing) that she was significantly Native American, and only recently learned differently, is that criticism warranted? I don't know.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Strike Force said:


> She'll be raked over the coals for this and labeled a liar, but if she grew up being told (and believing) that she was significantly Native American, and only recently learned differently, is that criticism warranted? I don't know.


I'm gonna go with my gut which says that she's setting things straight in order to improve her marketability and it will improve it, but obviously nowhere near enough to propel her as a serious contender. 

She never was. And this puts the nail in her coffin. 

The democrats will be pushing Kamala Harris to the moon because she's about as establishment and career politician as you can possibly get. 

If Hillary doesn't run, she's the one.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I'm gonna go with my gut which says that she's setting things straight in order to improve her marketability and it will improve it, but obviously nowhere near enough to propel her as a serious contender.
> 
> She never was. And this puts the nail in her coffin.


Mmmm, I'm not sure it's true that she was "never" a serious contender. That's not quite accurate. Was she ever the odds-on favorite? No. Was she near the front of the pack when she declared? Definitely.



Reaper said:


> If Hillary doesn't run, she's the one.


Please, god, not Hillary. Anything but that.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Strike Force said:


> Mmmm, I'm not sure it's true that she was "never" a serious contender. That's not quite accurate. Was she ever the odds-on favorite? No. Was she near the front of the pack when she declared? Definitely.


I don't recall her ever polling as even the top democrat even before pocagate :shrug



> Please, god, not Hillary. Anything but that.


If Kamala doesn't poll better than Bernie (which she isn't) and Biden refuses to run, she'll be back. Worse than ever.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

oh please warren wasn't confused about her heritage. 

she claimed minority status so she would have an easier time getting into college and getting hired for jobs. she didn't want to risk being discriminated against by claiming white.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I don't recall her ever polling as even the top democrat even before pocagate :shrug


I said "near the front of the pack." Let's be more precise with language.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





Same old shit from Pelosi


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*





To the shock of no one. Who would want to claim to be a feminist these days?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Strike Force said:


> I said "near the front of the pack." Let's be more precise with language.


Near? Why does that even make it relevant. 

If you're not in the top 3 you're a nobody in a presidential election. In fact no one other than the top 2 matter in any primary.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> oh please warren wasn't confused about her heritage.
> 
> she claimed minority status so she would have an easier time getting into college and getting hired for jobs. *she didn't want to risk being discriminated against by claiming white*.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






This was always going to be what Tulsi's run was going to be like. :lauren Anti-war candidates not allowed, in either party. And if you try to run third party or independent, you must be shamed and smeared for daring to participate in democracy.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


>


why are you acting surprised?

schools have ethnic quotas to fill, both in terms of student and faculty. this is not some myth, this is fact. 

warren was afraid she'd get lost in a sea of white people so she claimed another set. can't knock the hustle but let's call it what it is.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

So, AOC wants a New Green Deal that will guarantee "economic security for all who are unable or *unwilling to work*". 

https://apps.npr.org/documents/docu...k9CcsCMJrIrKGCt8fYPB6Zc1LWALM9WkywPFJOs1V0nBQ










Anyone want to explain this one?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

that has to be a mistake... :lol

in before BM explains why people unwilling to work should be paid $40k a year... :lol

UNWILLING to work... :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Isn't that what unemployment benefits do already?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

^^Not really. Unemployment benefits tend to go to those showing a willingness to get a job. 

That's one of the worst ways to communite whatever she's trying to communicate imo. The WORST way imaginable. That word choice IS indeed retarded.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Isn't that what unemployment benefits do already?


No. In the US unemployment benefits are for people who have recently lost their jobs (generally through no fault of their own). You still have to try to find work. You can't just say "I don't wanna work" and keep getting checks.

I think this was probably just a sloppily written talking point for the GND. I doubt it'll be a part of the actual proposed legislation itself.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> So, AOC wants a New Green Deal that will guarantee "economic security for all who are unable or *unwilling to work*".
> 
> https://apps.npr.org/documents/docu...k9CcsCMJrIrKGCt8fYPB6Zc1LWALM9WkywPFJOs1V0nBQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to explain this one?


Even better is "rebuilding" EVERY BUILDING IN THE COUNTRY :lol

And getting rid of commercial air travel by replacing it with HIGH SPED (not sic) RAIL

And getting rid of most cars 

And essentially ending the eating of meat

Cost? Who gives a shit the Fed will punch some buttons on their magic money machine. Spend a hundred trillion dollars in ten years on top of the 5 trillion a year the government will already be spending, spend 150 trillion in ten years when tax receipts in that time will only be a third of that, at best? Nah there could not possibly be any negative consequences for increasing the debt to GDP ratio to 5:1 or 6:1 in ten years. The financial strength of the country is already SO GREAT with the ratio being 1.1:1 as it is now

And never mind the insane cost, the president showed the more effective way of attacking neo-socialism at the SOTU: on the grounds of personal liberty and government intrusion into people's lives. The "Green New Deal" would impose a kind of life on the American people unlike anything they have ever experienced, a level of government control over individuals that the public has no appetite for

Good sir I think your earlier prediction is correct. AO-Bug Eyes is going to be excellent at getting people elected. At getting Republican people elected


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I really don't think progressives have come to terms with being co-opted by the establishment yet. You're not rebels anymore, you're pro-censorship corporate toadies.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Anyone want to explain this one?


Certainly an example of a retarded statement. Why the fuck anyone would want to help support people unwilling to work is beyond me.

The sad thing is this misstep will haunt AOC for a long time. There is no logical reason why she chose to use this terminology.



777 said:


> I really don't think progressives have come to terms with being co-opted by the establishment yet. You're not rebels anymore, you're *pro-censorship *corporate toadies.


Yeah, that makes zero sense seeing as all the progressives I follow are the ones standing up against the likes of twitter etc banning Alex Jones.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Yeah, that makes zero sense seeing as all the progressives I follow are the ones standing up against the likes of twitter etc banning Alex Jones.


Such as?


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> Such as?





> I despise Alex Jones. He's factually wrong about nearly everything he says & he's an extremist. Having said that this isn't the got ya you think it is. Begging social media oligarchs for censorship will always end poorly. Spend more time debunking him instead of deplatforming him


 - Kyle Kulinski



> The antidote to bad speech isn't censorship, the antidote to bad speech is MORE SPEECH not LESS. If you don't like what Alex Jones has to say, then set up a Facebook page to Called "Debunking Alex Jones". Censorship always backfires and has myriad unintended consequences.


 - Jimmy Dore



> Bill Maher, HBO’s late-night political satirist defended Alex Jone’s right to “free speech” on his show Friday night. Maher slammed Jones as some who has "told crazy lies" about him and many others, but argued that "if you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech."
> 
> “That’s free speech for the speech you hate. That’s what free speech means. We’re losing the thread of the concepts that are important to this country,” Maher continued.


 - Bill Maher



> YouTube Censors "Atheist" And More - GET MAD.


 - Amazing Atheist, there are tons for him.

TYT video here.

Dusty Smith is always supporting freespeech but he's been banned regularly from Twitter etc so its hard to find his content!

I could go on.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Funny, I was thinking specifically of Jimmy Dore when I wrote that initial post. The same Jimmy Dore who actually spit in the face of Alex Jones. Lip service didn't keep Jones from getting deplatformed...meanwhile they still shill for Hillary and the rest of the neo-libs, parroting the MSM and providing cover for draconian censorship legislation/policy under the banner of 'social justice'. I'm familiar with all the 'progressives' you've listed and I'm not convinced, most have disappointed me on various levels over the years.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Progressives shilling for Hillary...

Think you're confusing progressives with establishment democrats but okay.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Progressives shilling for Hillary...
> 
> Think you're confusing progressives with establishment democrats but okay.


OK, so Dore and the Turks weren't pushing for Hillary? And I suppose Antifa are free speech absolutists as well. And Starbucks isn't sucking BLM's knob. etc. etc.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> OK, so Dore and the Turks weren't pushing for Hillary? And I suppose Antifa are free speech absolutists as well. And Starbucks isn't sucking BLM's knob. etc. etc.


Jiimy loves Hillary






I don't watch TYT much because they're shit, but they said vote hillary as the lesser of two evils, as far as I'm aware none of them chose her as their presidential nominee instead wanting Sanders. Yes they shillarry'd at the end because of the fact it was either her or Trump.

Antifa aren't progressive, they're a part of the fascist left in the same way that Nazis aren't conservatives.

Starbucks are a corporate entity who will suck the knob of anyone that helps their profits.

I am never surprised anymore by the misrepresentation of certain sides of the political landscape by opposing sides.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Jiimy loves Hillary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch TYT much because they're shit, but they said vote hillary as the lesser of two evils, as far as I'm aware none of them chose her as their presidential nominee instead wanting Sanders. Yes they shillarry'd at the end because of the fact it was either her or Trump.
> 
> Antifa aren't progressive, they're a part of the fascist left in the same way that Nazis aren't conservatives.
> 
> Starbucks are a corporate entity who will suck the knob of anyone that helps their profits.
> 
> I am never surprised anymore by the misrepresentation of certain sides of the political landscape by opposing sides.


Forgive me if I have a hard time trusting Jimmy Dore on anything he says. My initial post was in regards to him shitting on centrism and pushing for a further left candidate in the upcoming election. While it might be a winning strategy, it's not going to be 'good' for anyone. And it's precisely these types that are going to legislate us into a dystopian future under the banner of their good intentions. The left needs to recognize the heavy hand needed to usher in their utopia.

Edit: Secondary thought. If millennials are even remotely as concerned as I am about the financial burden the boomers have left in their wake, I can't understand how they can buy into AOC's pie in the sky 'plans'.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Obviously shitting on AOC is the in thing but I felt like this was a great video.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Obviously shitting on AOC is the in thing but I felt like this was a great video.


15.4 million views on twitter.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1093601038622281728
bae is outdrawing the msm. 

then again it could just be ben shapiro watching 15 million times.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Here's your moral panic guys


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



DaRealNugget said:


> 15.4 million views on twitter.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1093601038622281728
> bae is outdrawing the msm.
> 
> then again it could just be ben shapiro watching 15 million times.


PewDiePie and D'Franco outdraw the MSM. 

The MSM is dying. 

As for campaign shenanigans this has been an issue before AOC has been alive, the movie "Bulworth" I believe talked about this. Yikes, scary how Politicians are now becoming parodies of those types of films.. and not in a good way.

You have to be rich, owe people to campaign, if you run as anything but Republican/Democrat you'll be ignored. There's so much wrong with how the campaign system works.



Reaper said:


> ^^Not really. Unemployment benefits tend to go to those showing a willingness to get a job.
> 
> That's one of the worst ways to communite whatever she's trying to communicate imo. The WORST way imaginable. That word choice IS indeed retarded.


Didn't I say something about her poor word choice not to long ago? 

Oh I'm not sure how accurate this is but she believes that there are no illegal Latinos, which explains her wanting to end ICE. Please make her President, I want to see insta citizenship for South Americans will do to our Social Programs, economy and voting. I think big time corporations may love this. I so badly want to see an AOC Presidency now.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Oh I'm not sure how accurate this is but she believes that there are no illegal Latinos, which explains her wanting to end ICE. Please make her President, I want to see insta citizenship for South Americans will do to our Social Programs, economy and voting. I think big time corporations may love this. I so badly want to see an AOC Presidency now.


Sally, dear Sally. 

Why don't you ever talk about the tens of thousands of Canadians and Europeans that over-stay their VISAs over time (not currently). Also illegals. But why do they get a pass whenever illegals are brought up? You know that white canadians and europeans will also flock america given the opportunity (and they do) for social programs and our jobs. 

Why is it always South / Central Americans for you? Cud it be because brown fear is a real thing and it just makes people who are already anti-immigration more likely to imagine that it's only the browns that over-stay or are illegals. 

Yah. We have an illegal immigration problem. Should be solved. Of course. No one denies it. The issues around who these illegals are is something that gets way too over-publicized with specific agendas on both sides of the isle.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.economist.com/open-futu...csdiP1yuAZQwtqm2ADC3S88smgxbzmEvbwYjXPQ9-ce8U

A good article here for anyone interested in the identity crisis liberals are currently facing. When exactly did (some) liberals become so illiberal.



> The dangers of illiberal liberalism
> Liberals who repress speech to prevent harm risk inviting authoritarianism, writes Claire Fox of the Academy of Ideas
> 
> If ever there was a vivid illustration of illiberal liberalism, it was the response to one of the essays in this very series. After The Economist published an article by Kathleen Stock, reader in philosophy at the University of Sussex, which sensitively questioned whether “self-declaration alone could reasonably be the only criterion of being trans”, the Sussex Students’ Union denounced her as a transphobe. In the union's original statement, it declared “we will not tolerate hate on our campus.” “Trans and non-binary lives are not a debate.”
> 
> These key tropes—“we will not tolerate” and “this is not a debate”—are now frequently deployed to curtail discussion of issues deemed to be taboo, invariably to “protect” people deemed vulnerable from speech deemed hateful. This secular version of blasphemy follows a sacred script, written by those who consider themselves liberals. Dare to query it and you’ll be damned.
> 
> I still consider myself a liberal in the Enlightenment sense of the word. But I have to admit that being a liberal these days is confusing. I continue to take inspiration from John Locke, John Stuart Mill and those more recent freedom fighters of the 1960s who challenged conformism and repression. In Britain this led to partial decriminalisation of both homosexuality and abortion in 1967, and a more open, tolerant, permissive society. These are the liberal values which I recognise and admire.
> 
> In contrast, today’s so-called progressive liberals are often intolerant, calling for official censure against anyone perceived as uttering non-progressive views. They openly despise everyone from Trump-voting “Deplorables” and Brexit-voting ”Gammons” (those “others” who dare to vote the wrong way and won’t espouse their “tolerant” values) to those in their own ranks who refuse to toe the liberal line. Many will have noticed the murky civil war among feminists on the transgender issue, or the venom heaped on anyone daring to demur on 100% endorsement of the #MeToo movement. Prominent women, many of whom would call themselves liberal feminists, have been turned on and accused of treason for daring to dissent.
> 
> Margaret Atwood’s thoughtful article, “Am I a Bad Feminist?”, was met with howls of rage from fellow feminists. The iconic novelist was accused of being a victim-blaming rape apologist, all of which apparently stemmed from her “white privilege”. Ironically, Ms Atwood’s essay notes that “anyone who doesn’t puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor”. How right she is. After Catherine Deneuve wrote an open letter raising concerns about the effect #MeToo might have on flirting, Asia Argento, also an actress, denounced her and “other French women” for their “interiorised misogyny [which] has lobotomised them to the point of no return”. For daring to raise questions about female sexual agency, Ms Deneuve and others have essentially been told that they’ve been brainwashed.
> 
> This particular viciousness is also aimed at liberals who dare any self-criticism. Mark Lilla, a professor of humanities at Columbia University, published a stinging rebuke of his own tribe for facilitating Donald Trump’s accession to the White House. His New York Times op-ed, “The End of Identity Liberalism” went viral, and received a savaging from his peers. Katherine Franke, a colleague of his at Columbia, accused him of “contributing to the same ideological project”’ as David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. “Both men are underwriting the whitening of American nationalism”, Ms Franke writes “Lilla’s op-ed does the…nefarious background work of making white supremacy respectable”. Such delegitimising slander is commonplace—it’s the liberals’ version of hate speech, spouted without apology in the fight against (ahem) hate speech.
> 
> Mr Lilla wants to save liberalism from illiberal identity politics. He writes, “American liberalism… has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.” He has a point, but I am less concerned with rescuing liberalism as a governing ideology than with saving one of its most valuable tenets: free speech, which is too often an inconvenient obstacle to righteousness.
> 
> Free speech is carelessly tossed to one side in order to silence views and people that liberals label as intolerant. In a shocking turnaround, the American Civil Liberties Union has recently abandoned its liberal, even-handed attitude to which free-speech cases it will defend. Its new guidelines, titled “Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities”, explicitly endorses the view that free speech can harm “marginalised” groups. “Speech that denigrates such groups can inflict serious harms,” it says, “and is intended to, and often will, impede progress toward equality.”
> 
> This reflects one of the ways in which liberals have let their guard down on free speech. They have bought into an expanded, subjective definition of harm that incorporates the alleged psychological distress caused by speech. To compound matters, the contemporary fashion for viewing the politically oppressed as defenceless, vulnerable victims has led to a downgrading of free-expression principles in order to protect those marginalised minorities from offence.
> 
> Some liberals also see free speech as a Trojan horse for alt-right bigotry. Commentators such as Owen Jones dismiss those fighting censorious trends as “right-wing, well-heeled, white, straight, male commentators… bigots who clothe themselves in the garb of free speech [but]…just want the right to hate without challenge.” And yet, this is partly due to liberal cowardice. A cursory look at coverage of the so-called “Free Tommy” brigade, centred around the alleged censorship of Tommy Robinson, a notorious anti-Islam campaigner, reveals how liberals shun defending the free-speech rights of the unpalatable. Yes, I find many of Mr Robinson’s views odious, but a pick’n’mix attitude to free speech betrays liberalism, not Mr Robinson, and worse, it adds to the myth that “free speech” is a “right-wing” cause.
> 
> In a much-cited essay entitled “The free speech panic: how the right concocted a crisis’” Will Davies muses: “The intriguing question is why free speech has become such a cherished value for conservatives?” Perhaps a better question would be: Why is free speech no longer “a cherished value” on the liberal left? Surely one reason is that liberals fear being denounced by commentators such as Mr Davies, who suggests that “free speech warriors” are self-serving, handmaidens of the alt-right. Another Guardian columnist, Nesrine Malik, has decided that ”freedom of speech is no longer a value. It has become a loophole exploited with impunity by trolls, racists and ethnic cleansing advocates”. Those who cannot so easily be dismissed as bigots, perhaps civil libertarian liberals, are sneeringly dismissed as “Free Speech Grifters—who flog PC culture as a singularly eminent threat to the freedom of expression.”
> 
> This liberal cynicism about the motives of those who espouse free speech can in turn warp their sense of tolerance of others. Afua Hirsch, a British writer and ex-barrister, suggests that “the culture war, so often dressed up as a battle over free speech, in reality boils down to a refusal to engage with alternative points of view.” I couldn’t agree more. However, with no sense of irony, Ms Hirsch goes on to decry the “fantasy” of free speech in which those worried about the “threat of immigration” are ascribed the worst possible motives. Ms Hirsch accuses them of using “sanitised language…to dress up vicious attitudes.”
> 
> But if an alternative view to Ms Hirsch’s on immigration (and indeed my own) is castigated as prettifying explicit racist abuse, what hope is there of an inclusive liberal political culture? This between-the-lines reading of political opinions that liberals denounce as a hateful intolerance lacks generosity or empathy. It tells us far more about the smug, closed-minded certainty of illiberal liberals than those they look down on. In fact, liberals will only become liberal again once they abandon this type of sneering and smearing and recognise that free speech—even for those we despise—is the core liberal project. Without it, the much feared (often exaggerated) rise of the far-right won’t be the biggest threat to our freedoms. Instead, illiberalism, in the name of liberalism, will be the PC midwife of authoritarianism.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Sally, dear Sally.
> 
> Why don't you ever talk about the *tens of thousands of Canadians and Europeans that over-stay their VISAs* over time (not currently). Also illegals. But why do they get a pass whenever illegals are brought up? You know that white canadians and europeans will also flock america given the opportunity (and they do) for social programs and our jobs.
> 
> Why is it always South / Central Americans for you? Cud it be because brown fear is a real thing and it just makes people who are already anti-immigration more likely to imagine that it's only the browns that over-stay or are illegals.
> 
> Yah. We have an illegal immigration problem. Should be solved. Of course. No one denies it. The issues around who these illegals are is something that gets way too over-publicized with specific agendas on both sides of the isle.


Those whities can hit the road too but the numbers of whites/asians/indians who overstay and become illegals are far less compared to South Americans.

Please don't try to deny it as a few thousand compared to millions is laughable. The biggest source of illegal immigration is from South America, not anywhere else comes close.

You know my Latin background, you know I support legal immigration and you know I hate corporations using illegals as disposable slaves. I hate the way when these people are offered amnesty then they're tossed to the wayside and promised things so those Politicians can get those juicy votes. So the "DA BRWN [email protected]" doesn't work on me, if that's what you're implying.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

How about the massive disservice uncontrolled immigration does to the countries from which people are fleeing? Mexico deserves better. They probably would have had a revolution decades ago if it weren't for the relief valve of the border.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Those whities can hit the road too but the numbers of whites/asians/indians who overstay and become illegals are far less compared to South Americans.
> 
> Please don't try to deny it as a few thousand compared to millions is laughable. The biggest source of illegal immigration is from South America, not anywhere else comes close.
> 
> You know my Latin background, you know I support legal immigration and you know I hate corporations using illegals as disposable slaves. I hate the way when these people are offered amnesty then they're tossed to the wayside and promised things so those Politicians can get those juicy votes. So the "DA BRWN [email protected]" doesn't work on me, if that's what you're implying.


We don't know the make up of the millions of illegals in our country btw. Plus we haven't had a census so we don't know their actual number. 

Considering they're illegals it's kinda not very easy to do a demographical analysis of their make up. 

As far as over-staying is concerned, white europeans and canadians are almost the same in number as browns. Anyways, the fact of the matter is that they are here. They have no where to go. You want to dump 11 million people (an assumed statistic) ? Where are they going to do? Who's going to take them in? It's not our responsibility, but whose responsibility are they going to be? What's going to happen to them? 

Why not just absorb the ones that are here and make it harder and less enticing for more to come back in. And you know the real way to do that and so do I. That we agree on.

My issue with the brown fear and hysteria is the lack of desire to accept those that are here once and for all and fix the system that keeps more and more coming once and for all. But we all know the real reason why nothing gets done. The flow of mexican illegals is good for business. And that includes the money the government can take from the loons that support them in their very inefficient and ineffective methods. 

One thing you can say about our systems. They're VERY effective in being money sinks.

PS. The reason why I say that it's brown fear at times and for a lot of people because they are heavily anti-illegals but also spend an inordinate amount of time worrying and talking about demographical / race shifts in America. Putt those two together makes it less genuine about being anti-immigration than they want us to believe.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> We don't know the make up of the millions of illegals in our country btw. Plus we haven't had a census so we don't know their actual number.
> 
> Considering they're illegals it's kinda not very easy to do a demographical analysis of their make up.
> 
> As far as over-staying is concerned, white europeans and canadians are almost the same in number as browns. Anyways, the fact of the matter is that they are here. They have no where to go. You want to dump 11 million people (an assumed statistic) ? Where are they going to do? Who's going to take them in? It's not our responsibility, but whose responsibility are they going to be? What's going to happen to them?
> 
> Why not just absorb the ones that are here and make it harder and less enticing for them to come back. And you know the real way to do that and so do I. That we agree on.


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

It's obvious that the largest groups of illegal aliens in the country would be made up of people coming from the countries containing large numbers of people who want to immigrate to the United States, that are closest to the United States.

Their responsibility, strictly by the law, is their own and their home countries'. The United States, as far as its law is concerned, is responsible for transporting them back to wherever they came from. I do agree that deporting such huge numbers of people is a practical impossibility and undesirable. Some not insignificant proportion is necessary, but there are plenty of them who are good productive illegal residents, would make good productive legal residents, and eventually good productive citizens.

The problem is that there have been amnesties before coupled with promises of true immigration law enforcement from then on out, particularly the law of 1986. The promises weren't kept.

Remove the ability of business to easily hire illegal aliens, stop being lax on visas, stop being lax on the southern border, let most of the ones here stay. I think there's some room to expand legal immigration numbers, if illegal immigration is clamped down on. Not a whole lot of room, but some. The country has averaged a million legal immigrants a year for over 25 years. It would probably average more if people saw immigration as a well-ordered, well-administered system instead of the mess it currently is with large numbers of illegal residents.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Remove the ability of business to easily hire illegal aliens, stop being lax on visas, stop being lax on the southern border, let most of the ones here stay. I think there's some room to expand legal immigration numbers, if illegal immigration is clamped down on. Not a whole lot of room, but some. The country has averaged a million legal immigrants a year for over 25 years. It would probably average more if people saw immigration as a well-ordered, well-administered system instead of the mess it currently is with large numbers of illegal residents.


We should _also _stop sanctioning, toppling governments, installing dummy governments that are sympathetic to American business concerns which create poor living conditions in their own countries. 

Make it more enticing for local industry (though local industry clearly does not respond positively to any incentive they get to produce more locally) so the solution there is to make our local economy more dependent on service and high tech industry etc. 

We know the solutions. The problem is that those in government also know the real solutions, but they don't want these solutions because American corporatist interests align with their profit motive. Tax breaks, cuts, incentives simply do not work to keep their manufacturing here either because there is _always _a better deal somewhere else. 

Is the solution really going to end up being more authoritarian control because we all know where that leads as well.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> We don't know the make up of the millions of illegals in our country btw. Plus we haven't had a census so we don't know their actual number.
> 
> Considering they're illegals it's kinda not very easy to do a demographical analysis of their make up.
> 
> As far as over-staying is concerned, white europeans and canadians are almost the same in number as browns. Anyways, the fact of the matter is that they are here. They have no where to go. You want to dump 11 million people (an assumed statistic) ? Where are they going to do? Who's going to take them in? It's not our responsibility, but whose responsibility are they going to be? What's going to happen to them?
> 
> Why not just absorb the ones that are here and make it harder and less enticing for more to come back in. And you know the real way to do that and so do I. That we agree on.
> 
> My issue with the brown fear and hysteria is the lack of desire to accept those that are here once and for all and fix the system that keeps more and more coming once and for all. But we all know the real reason why nothing gets done. The flow of mexican illegals is good for business. And that includes the money the government can take from the loons that support them in their very inefficient and ineffective methods.
> 
> One thing you can say about our systems. They're VERY effective in being money sinks.


Well with the Latino population growing and factories shutting down with illegals striking and areas that were black or white becoming Latino.. It's fairly easy to say which is the biggest cause of illegal immigration.. I mean we're right next to South America.. with an unprotected border.. and I don't think millions of Canadians are coming here illegally to work. :laugh:

I don't think you'll find me saying there aren't white people who overstay their visas or anything to that. After all they're white so they should know better, unlike the others. (Joke by the way, thought you might laugh at some low expectations  )People who overstay their visas should be given the option to become Citizens or renew their visas, pretty simple. :shrug

I have no issue absorbing the ones that are here who wish to be citizens. It's not fair to those who come here legally and wait and learn the language and work hard for it. Meanwhile others get accepted because, "They're here already, fuck it." 

Quite frankly if the corporations were fined so much and inspected so they'd never hire them again and you know, follow federal regulations they circumvent by hiring illegals. Many would go back home of their own accord, wouldn't be worth it staying here. The ones that stay can become Citizens.

Nothing will be done because slave labor is cheaper and better. It's why tech companies purposely hire asians and indians so that they're an indentured work force. The companies have full total control over them. If the Government and Corporations can make money off it, they'll do it. :serious:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549

Interesting results from Finland's basic income experiment. 



> Finland basic income trial left people 'happier but jobless'
> 
> Giving jobless people in Finland a basic income for two years did not lead them to find work, researchers said.
> 
> From January 2017 until December 2018, 2,000 unemployed Finns got a monthly flat payment of €560 (£490; $634).
> 
> *The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs, and support them if they had to take insecure gig economy work.
> 
> While employment levels did not improve, participants said they felt happier and less stressed.*
> 
> When it launched the pilot scheme back in 2017, Finland became the first European country to test out the idea of an unconditional basic income. It was run by the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency, and involved 2,000 randomly-selected people on unemployment benefits.
> 
> It immediately attracted international interest - but these results have now raised questions about the effectiveness of such schemes.
> 
> What is 'basic income' and how does it work?
> Universal basic income, or UBI, means that everyone gets a set monthly income, regardless of means. The Finnish trial was a bit different, as it focused on people who were unemployed.
> 
> Another popular variation is 'universal basic services' - where instead of getting an income, things like education, healthcare and transport are free for all.
> 
> Although it's enjoying a resurgence in popularity, the idea isn't new. In fact, it was first described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia, published in 1516 - a full 503 years ago.
> 
> Such schemes are being trialled all over the world. Adults in a village in western Kenya are being given $22 a month for 12 years, until 2028, while the Italian government is working on introducing a "citizens' income". The city of Utrecht, in the Netherlands, is also carrying out a basic income study called Weten Wat Werkt - "Know What Works" - until October.
> 
> What is the point?
> Supporters of basic income often believe an unconditional safety net can help people out of poverty, by giving them the time to apply for jobs or learn essential new skills. This is seen as increasingly important in the age of automation - that is, put very simply, as robots take people's jobs.
> 
> Miska Simanainen, one of the Kela researchers behind the Finnish study, tells BBC News that this was what their government had wanted to test, in order "to see if it would be a way of reforming the social security system".
> 
> *So, did it work?
> That depends what you mean by 'work'.
> 
> Did it help unemployed people in Finland find jobs, as the centre-right Finnish government had hoped? No, not really.
> 
> Mr Simanainen says that while some individuals found work, they were no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money. They are still trying to work out exactly why this is, for the final report that will be published in 2020.
> 
> Will Finland's basic income trial help the jobless?
> No expansion of Finland basic income trial
> But for many people, the original goal of getting people into work was flawed to begin with. If instead the aim were to make people generally happier, the scheme would have been considered a triumph.
> 
> One participant, former newspaper editor Tuomas, pretty much summed this up when he told BBC News about how the basic income had affected him.
> 
> "I am still without a job," he explained. "I can't say that the basic income has changed a lot in my life. OK, psychologically yes, but financially - not so much."*
> 
> What are the downsides to basic income?
> UBI is one of those rare issues that attracts equally strong support - and criticism - from all parts of the political spectrum.
> 
> For a lot of people on the left, UBI focuses too heavily on individuals' personal wealth and buying power - or rather, their lack of it - without doing anything to stop companies wasting resources by producing far more stuff than people need, and over-working their employees in the process.
> 
> Economics writer Grace Blakely makes this point in the New Socialist, adding that "without fundamental structural reforms to our economic system, UBI will only be a sticking plaster papering over the cracks".
> 
> Others worry that basic income will be used to cut costs, by setting the rate too low and slashing other, means-tested benefits.
> 
> Meanwhile, many on the political right and centre worry about the exact opposite - that UBI would be too expensive to implement, and would encourage a "something for nothing" culture.
> 
> Ulrich Spiesshofer, chief executive of ABB engineering company, echoed this sentiment in 2016 when he told the Financial Times that "economic rewards [for people] should be based on actually creating economic value".
> 
> So what next?
> Researchers from Kela are now busy analysing all of their results, to figure out what else - if anything - they can tell us about basic income's uses and shortcomings.
> 
> Mr Simanainen says that he doesn't like to think of the trial as having "failed".
> 
> From his point of view, "this is not a failure or success - it is a fact, and [gives us] new information that we did not have before this experiment".


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> We should _also _stop sanctioning, toppling governments, installing dummy governments that are sympathetic to American business concerns which create poor living conditions in their own countries.
> 
> Make it more enticing for local industry (though local industry clearly does not respond positively to any incentive they get to produce more locally) so the solution there is to make our local economy more dependent on service and high tech industry etc.
> 
> We know the solutions. The problem is that those in government also know the real solutions, but they don't want these solutions because American corporatist interests align with their profit motive. Tax breaks, cuts, incentives simply do not work to keep their manufacturing here either because there is _always _a better deal somewhere else.
> 
> Is the solution really going to end up being more authoritarian control because we all know where that leads as well.


Mexico is not sanctioned, toppled, dummied, or impoverished by American business concerns 

Foreign business that opens factories in Mexico are besieged with job seekers because those cheaply paying factory jobs (cheaply paying compared to the same jobs in the United States) are easier and pay more than being a peasant 

The president has increased manufacturing jobs in the United States through a combination of various policies, which was said to be a literal impossibility by any combination of any policies. The man has proved himself quite a radical on manufacturing, you should be supporting radicals :trolldog

There were much fewer people wishing to migrate to the United States from central and South America when the United States exercised a more controlling hand over the hemisphere. The Cold War ends, the United States scales down its control, things go to shit and everybody wants to leave for Yanquiland. Perhaps we should bring back the military juntas?


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






Damage control following the Dorsey interview.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> Damage control following the Dorsey interview.


Do you have bullet points about what happened exactly? I don't feel like listening to a 2 hour podcast or commentary videos on it lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-case-of-aocs-scrubbed-green-new-deal-details

AOC's lies are piling up. :heston So much for her being a different kind of politician.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

AOC is getting the push from creative right now so anytime she botches they can just rehab her image anytime they want.



*"I know you have a lot of big ideas and all... but I heard you're a big fan of hip-hop music is that correct?"*









*"Your detractors are saying your proposals are unrealistic and impossible... but let me ask you something. Do you think Donald Trump might be a racist?"* 









*"Republicans amirite?"*











Next time she flubs they can just book in her a lip syncing contest on Fallon, seems to work like a charm.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

She is pretty hot when she's not doing her crazy-smile stare. AOC pouting is :kobe6

There's just something about a quietly angry latina that just does it for me


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Meanwhile what our government is really up to as we waste our time staring at hot Latinas.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

@Reaper

*Venezuela says plane from Miami delivered weapons for use by enemies of Maduro*

Not to get too deep into conspiracy theory and Maduro could easily be bullshitting, but allegedly...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094008901618552833


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

There are no good guys in the Venezuela power struggle. Trump is being pragmatic. I don't agree with him on Venezuela, I think we shouldn't get involved. But, I don't really care that much. If Venezuelans wanna be socialists then let them eat their low calorie socialist urinal cake. Just don't come running here after it all falls apart, taking your shithole ideas with you.

Absolutely against getting militarily involved though.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> @Reaper
> 
> *Venezuela says plane from Miami delivered weapons for use by enemies of Maduro*
> 
> Not to get too deep into conspiracy theory and Maduro could easily be bullshitting, but allegedly...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094008901618552833


At this point anyone that accuses Americans of covert operations, coups and supplying arms to anti government rebels, by default accept that as the truth. 

There is much too much proof to live in denial anymore.


----------



## WalkingInMemphis

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Whaaaaaaat? The *C*ocaine *I*mport *A*gency meddling with soverign foreign governments to gain an outcome favorable to the US?

I can't believe it.

:shockedpunk


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094428450616561664
How the MSM operates in a nutshell.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://apnews.com/4faf1cb2ad274a5fab5945c007d707cc



> *US refiner Citgo emerges as key to Venezuela’s power battle*
> 
> NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. and dozens of other countries may have declared that Nicolas Maduro is no longer the legitimate president of Venezuela, but that has not loosened his grip on power. Maduro still controls the military, despite scattered defections. He has the loyalty of the Supreme Court. And he has rendered the opposition-controlled National Assembly powerless by setting up a rival constitutional assembly.
> 
> But Maduro stands to lose one crucial lever of power: Houston-based refining company Citgo, a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuelan state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA, known by its acronym PDVSA.
> 
> Americans know Citgo for its familiar red triangle logo at its more than 5,000 branded gas stations and the iconic sign visible from Fenway Park in Boston. Venezuelans know it as one of their collapsing economy’s last lifelines.
> *
> The Trump administration is moving to help transfer its control to Juan Guaido, the National Assembly leader recognized by the U.S. and other countries as Venezuela’s legitimate president.
> *
> Such a feat would give Guaido a slice of de facto power.
> 
> “It’s more than symbolic,” said William Burke-White, a professor of international law at the University of Pennsylvania who served in the State Department under the Obama Administration. “An alternative power is starting to emerge. This is about creating a world where there is another entity contesting every point of authority that Maduro has.”
> 
> Here’s a look Citgo’s critical role in Venezuela’s power struggle.
> 
> ___
> *
> WHY IS CITGO SUCH A VALUABLE ASSET FOR VENEZUELA?*
> 
> U.S. refiners like Citgo are among the few customers paying cash for Venezuelan crude. Oil shipments to Venezuela’s other big customers, China and Russia, are usually taken as repayment for billions of dollars in debt. So the cash from Citgo has become a lifeline over the past two years as Venezuela’s oil output has plummeted amid chronic underinvestment in PDVSA and oil prices have dropped from historic highs.
> 
> Until U.S. sanctions prohibited, Citgo also repatriated profits to PDVSA. It also sent back fuel that Venezuela needs because of its deteriorating refining capabilities, as well as diluents that PDVSA needs to mix with Venezuela’s heaviest crude oil before it can be exported. But sanctions have prohibited those exports. Like other refiners, Citgo can now only import Venezuelan crude oil if it makes payments into blocked bank accounts, which almost certainly means the PDVSA will halt shipments to the U.S.
> 
> Maduro’s government also mortgaged Citgo to raise cash. Almost 50 percent of the company’s shares were put up as collateral for a $1.5 billion loan from the Russian state-controlled oil company Rosneft. The rest of the shares are collateral for PDVSA’s 2020 bond, the only bond Venezuela has continued to make payments on in a desperate effort to hang on to Citgo.
> 
> ___
> 
> *HOW DO U.S. SANCTIONS AFFECT CITGO?*
> 
> Citgo itself has become a little less dependent on PDVSA in one crucial way. Like other PDVSA customers, the refiner has been forced in recent months to look for alternative sources of crude because of Venezuela’s dramatic production decline, said Jennifer Rowland, an equity research analyst for Edward Jones who focuses on the energy sector.
> 
> Still, the company faces a scramble to replace a complete loss of Venezuelan supply. Citgo had been processing up to 200,000 barrels a day of Venezuelan crude before the sanctions, or about 26 percent of the company’s total 749,000-barrel-a-day capacity. Most of the Venezuelan oil was processed at its Lake Charles refinery in Louisiana, which is specially equipped to handle the high-density, high-sulfur crude that Venezuela exports. That type of crude oil is in short supply because of production cuts in other countries like Mexico and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Citgo itself is not a target of the sanctions. The Trump administration carved out an exemption for the PDVSA subsidiary so Americans can continue doing business with it.
> 
> ___
> 
> *CAN GUAIDO PULL OFF A LEADERSHIP CHANGE AT CITGO?*
> 
> Guaido has said he will soon name a new board of directors for Citgo. Legally, there may be little stopping him from doing so. There is some precedent, as when the U.S. and other countries recognized a coalition of rebel groups in Libya as the official government in 2011 when Moammar Gadhafi still controlled Tripoli. The decision gave the rebel group the right to take control of Libyan assets overseas.
> 
> “International law allows this to happen,” Burke-White said.
> 
> Implementing the change, however, involves logistical hurdles. Pedro Burelli, a U.S.-based consultant who was a PDVSA executive board member until 1998, said Guaido must first appoint new PDVSA leaders, who would then oversee the shareholder-voting process of selecting a Citgo board. But that new PDVSA leadership would not have real access to the bureaucracy and operations of the parent company, which Maduro controls.
> 
> ___
> 
> *WHAT DOES CITGO HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS?*
> 
> As a company, Citgo has offered limited insight about how it is coping with the power struggle. What little is known reflects the company’s uneasy identity as a Venezuelan-owned entity with deep American roots.
> 
> Citgo’s current chief executive, Asdrubal Chavez, is a Maduro ally and cousin of his late predecessor, Hugo Chavez. He works out of the Bahamas because the U.S. has denied him a visa.
> *
> Other members of Citgo’s executive teams are U.S. citizens who have worked at the company for decades. White House national security adviser John Bolton met with some of them last month and tweeted that it was “very productive” meeting. Later, Citgo released a statement saying it was aware of a possible change in board members and “will follow the laws of the United States.*”
> 
> ___
> *
> WHAT IS CITGO’S HISTORY?
> *
> The company was founded in 1910 as City Services by American oilman Henry Doherty. Now a refining and marketing operation, Citgo employs 3,400 people and runs three refineries, in Louisiana, Texas and Illinois.
> 
> The company changed ownership several times before PDVSA fully bought it in 1990. At the time, relations between Venezuela and the U.S. were strong, and PDVSA was a well-regarded state oil corporation.
> 
> Chavez, the firebrand socialist who died in 2013, often complained that Citgo contributed little to Venezuela’s coffers and at one point tried to sell the company. Instead, his government put loyalists in key positions, some of them with little oil industry experience. Corporate upheaval became a way of life at the company.
> 
> An oil industry purge in 2017 included the arrest of former Citgo CEO Nelson Martinez, who died in prison last year. Six other Citgo executives were also arrested including five who hold U.S. passports. Maduro’s government says the purge was intended to root out corruption. Critics say it was politically motivated.
> 
> ___
> 
> *WHAT ABOUT THE CREDITORS TARGETING CITGO?*
> 
> It’s unclear how much financial value Citgo would be to Guaido. For one thing, the most immediate task will be keeping Citgo from falling into the hands of creditors owed billions of dollars by Venezuela and PDVSA.
> 
> Economists expect Maduro to stop paying to protect Citgo, including defaulting on the 2020 PDVSA bond. He also could stop honoring settlements with companies whose Venezuelan assets were expropriated under Chavez, including the Canadian mining company Crystallex, which won a court ruling last year allowing it go after Citgo to recover its losses.
> 
> Russ Dallen, managing partner of brokerage firm Caracas Capital, said the Trump administration may seek to impose a “debt shield” for Venezuela similar to a measure the U.N. implemented for Iraq during the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. But he said the measure would have to go through the Organization of American States because Maduro allies Russia and China have veto power on the U.N. Security Council.
> 
> There is also the risk that Maduro will stop paying off the Rosneft loan collateralized by Citgo shares. The Trump administration has said it is exploring legal options to keep Citgo from falling into Russian hands.


https://www.france24.com/en/20190209-venezuelas-guaido-wont-rule-out-authorizing-us-intervention



> *Venezuela's Guaido won't rule out authorizing US intervention*
> 
> Venezuela's self-proclaimed acting president Juan Guaido refused to rule out Friday the possibility of authorizing United States intervention to help force President Nicolas Maduro from power and alleviate a humanitarian crisis.
> 
> National Assembly leader Guaido told AFP he would do "everything that is necessary... to save human lives," acknowledging that US intervention is "a very controversial subject."
> 
> The opposition leader launched a bid to oust Maduro last month, declaring himself interim president, a move recognized by the US and around 40 other countries, including 20 from the European Union.
> 
> Under Maduro's stewardship, oil-rich Venezuela's economy has collapsed leaving the country wracked by hyperinflation, recession and shortages of basic necessities such as food and medicine.
> 
> "We're going to do everything that has a lower social cost, that generates governability and stability to deal with the emergency," said Guaido, 35.
> 
> He is trying to bring in food and medicines from the US but the supplies are stuck in warehouses in Colombia because the Venezuelan military has blocked their entry.
> 
> Earlier, Maduro vowed not to let in "fake humanitarian aid" and claimed Venezuela's crisis has been "fabricated by Washington" to justify intervention.
> 
> Guaido says 300,000 people could die if desperately-needed aid isn't brought in.
> 
> *- 'Sanitation emergency' -*
> 
> And he said a first attempt to bring in the aid should be made next week.
> 
> "The first stage is containing the sanitation emergency. Two days ago eight children under three lost their lives ... dehydrated, malnourished," said Guaido.
> 
> Failing public services including water, electricity and transport are among Venezuela's worst problems, while there is also a shortage of doctors and medical supplies in hospitals.
> 
> Helping the needy is not Guaido's only aim, though.
> 
> He has dismissed Maduro as illegitimate over his reelection last May in polls branded a fraud by the US, EU and many Latin American countries.
> 
> Guaido says the constitution allows him to assume power, set up a transitional government and hold new elections -- one of his key demands that has received widespread international support.
> 
> "We'll do everything we have to in a sovereign and autonomous manner to achieve an end to the usurpation, a transitional government and free elections," he said.
> *
> - 'Crime against humanity' -*
> 
> And he still has faith that the military can be won over, appealing to their sense of humanity.
> 
> "The armed forces have a huge dilemma, whether or not to accept the aid. It would be almost miserable at this point of huge necessity not to accept it," he said.
> 
> "Inhibiting the entry of this aid could be seen as a crime against humanity."
> 
> Guaido said the military has to decide whether to "take the side of the constitution" or to "continue on the side of an increasingly isolated dictator."
> 
> But he said "fear" was preventing more top ranking members of the armed forces from switching sides and joining air force general Francisco Yanez who last weekend disavowed Maduro.
> 
> "We've seen some National Guard sergeants who've shown unhappiness and they're being tortured. One of the sergeants' relatives is missing."
> 
> Consultants Eurasia Group said on Thursday that Maduro's traditonal allies Russia and China are "unlikely to lend (him) meaningful support," reinforcing its view that the socialist leader "will be unable to sustain his regime."
> 
> Guaido agrees that no-one will come to Maduro's rescue.
> 
> "I'm not very worried... Maduro hasn't had a new line of credit since 2016," said Guaido.
> 
> "I'm sure that Moscow as much as Beijing is very aware of the situation in Venezuela, that Maduro doesn't have popular support, the he can't stabilize the economy... all the while holding the biggest oil reserves in the world."


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I'll say it again but the C.I.A needs to be disbanded.

I'm for counter intelligence but this shadow Government nonsense is getting old with them causing problems all over the world.

The FBI needs looking at too, they stopped being non-partisan and now are puppets of the State.

We literally have no protection from corrupt Politicians anymore.



CamillePunk said:


> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-case-of-aocs-scrubbed-green-new-deal-details
> 
> AOC's lies are piling up. :heston So much for her being a different kind of politician.


I said this would happen. Going to wait and see though, AOC will bring years of enjoyment!


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



> State Lawmakers in Arizona are weighing a measure to declare pornography a public health crisis.
> Introduced by Republican Rep. Michelle Udall, the symbolic measure says pornography "perpetuates a sexually toxic environment that damages all areas of our society," AZ Central reported.
> Though there would be no legal implications, the measure could pave the way for future pornography regulation policy.
> Democratic lawmakers objected to the measure's wide-ranging descriptions of pornography's negative effects.
> 
> State Lawmakers in Arizona are weighing a measure to declare pornography a public health crisis.
> Introduced by Republican Rep. Michelle Udall, the measure says pornography "perpetuates a sexually toxic environment that damages all areas of our society," AZ Central reported.
> "Like the tobacco industry, the pornography industry has created a public health crisis," Udall reportedly told lawmakers. "Pornography is used pervasively, even by minors."
> House Concurrent Resolution 2009 says children's easy access to online porn contributes to "low self-esteem, eating disorders and an increase in problematic sexual activity at ever-younger ages."
> The proposal, which passed through the state's House Committee on Health & Human Services, has no legal implications but, if passed, could set a precedent for future pornography regulation policy.
> Read more: The most ridiculous law in every state
> If passed into law, the measure would make Arizona the 12th state to pass a resolution on pornography as a public health crisis.
> In addition to self-esteem, the measure states that pornography can contribute to young viewers being exposed to "toxic sexual behaviors, emotional, mental and medical illnesses and difficulty forming or maintaining intimate relationships."
> Pornography "normalizes violence and the abuse of women and children by treating them as objects, increasing the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution and child porn," the measure reads.
> The measure's statements on the negative effects of porn were met with resistance from Democratic lawmakers who objected to the wide-ranging language that described pornography's negative effects.
> "There are statements in here that seem hyperbolic and unproven," said Democratic Rep. Kelli Butler. "I just don't think there’s necessarily the science to back up those claims."
> The true nature of pornography's potential for personally negative effects is the subject of widespread debate, as some interest groups contend it creates "sexual harm" and some research contends that pornography can damage relationships, though there is no national resolution on the matter.
> AZ Central reported that supporters said the resolution was an important step in flagging pornography as a problem for increased awareness among parents and educators.
> Despite the wealth of interest groups and lawmakers who have spoken out about the "crisis," no states have passed laws against as a result of the measures, and the issue has sparked nearly two decades of legal battles in federal courts, with more attention paid to squashing the proliferation of child and revenge porn.
> The resolution will be presented in the Arizona House of Representatives, in which Republicans hold the majority, and AZ reported that if passed through the state's House and Senate, it would not need signing by Governor Doug Ducey.


http://archive.is/ZClgB#selection-1485.0-1609.232
Really man?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/violent-video-game-tax-proposed-in-pennsylvania/1100-6464870/?utm_source=reddit.com



> *Violent Video Game Tax Proposed In Pennsylvania*
> 
> Lawmakers from Pennsylvania have put forth a bill that proposes a 10% excise tax on violent video games. House Bill 109 seeks to impose the so-called "sin tax" on games sold at retail that are rated by the ESRB as M for Mature or Adults-Only. The money would go into a fund called the "Digital Protection for School Safety Account" that aims to enhance security measures at schools in the wake of the school shootings in Parkland, Florida and Newtown, Connecticut.
> 
> State representative Chris Quinn, a republican, initially put forth the bill in 2018, but it never made it out of committee during the 2018 legislative session. The new version is similarly worded.
> 
> The 10 percent tax would be in addition to applicable state and local taxes. The sales tax rate in Pennsylvania is 6%, which means a standard $60 game costs around $64. With the extra 10 percent tax on violent games, the cost of an M-rated game like Red Dead Redemption 2 would make the game end up costing about $70.
> 
> Explaining the bill last year, Quinn said violent video games might be an element in the rise of school shootings in America. "One factor that may be contributing to the rise in, and intensity of, school violence is the material kids see, and act out, in video games," he said.
> 
> Quinn cited the National Center for Health Research's statement that studies demonstrate a link between violent video games and increases in aggressive thoughts and behaviors. Quinn's comments conveniently leave out the same statement's disclaimer that other factors like mental illness, access to weapons, and adverse environments should be considered as other risk factors. Not only that, but the National Center for Health Research's own reporting states that studies have not shown that aggression leads to increased instances of deadly violence or criminal activity.
> 
> Expectedly, the Entertainment Software Association, which lobbies on behalf of the video game industry, is taking a hard line against this bill. In a statement to Variety, the ESA the bill is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> "Numerous authorities--including scientists, medical professionals, government agencies, and the US Supreme Court--found that video games do not cause violence," it said. "We encourage Pennsylvania legislators to work with us to raise awareness about parental controls and the ESRB video game rating system, which are effective tools to ensure parents maintain control over the video games played in their home."
> 
> After the Sandy Hook shooting, a lawmaker from Connecticut proposed a similar tax in 2013. Also that year, a state representative from Missouri proposed a sales tax on games rated M and above. In both cases, the funds would have gone towards mental health programs. However, the bills never became law.


Nearly 30 we've been hearing this bullshit about violent video games. If it were true, wouldn't we all be serial killers by now?


----------



## virus21

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.gamespot.com/articles/violent-video-game-tax-proposed-in-pennsylvania/1100-6464870/?utm_source=reddit.com
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 30 we've been hearing this bullshit about violent video games. If it were true, wouldn't we all be serial killers by now?











What the hell UK?!


----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


> What the hell UK?!


I don't know what the hell as I'll never watch a Sargon video. What's he on about then?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I don't know what the hell as I'll never watch a Sargon video. What's he on about then?


A TERF got arrested for criticizing a trans-woman on Twitter


----------



## TheKingEdoardo

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Wherefore speak of politics? All yond this nation needeth is a king!


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.gamespot.com/articles/violent-video-game-tax-proposed-in-pennsylvania/1100-6464870/?utm_source=reddit.com
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 30 we've been hearing this bullshit about violent video games. If it were true, wouldn't we all be serial killers by now?


Violent video games don't necessarily make people serial killers, but we do know exposure to violence at a young age does play a role in creating serial killers . I understand the sentiment behind making violent video games more difficult for kids to play, but the kind of exposure to violence serial killers experience is usually against them, or to a family member etc etc. Then again, who knows what would have happened with that 17 year old who killed his brother after watching Dexter , so who knows


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

First it was rap music, then it was tv/movies and now its video games. When will these people start blaming the parents for not bring up their kid right


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> First it was rap music, then it was tv/movies and now its video games. When will these people start blaming the parents for not bring up their kid right


They know it's a bill that can't pass so they're acting like they're doing something.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.gamespot.com/articles/violent-video-game-tax-proposed-in-pennsylvania/1100-6464870/?utm_source=reddit.com
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 30 we've been hearing this bullshit about violent video games. If it were true, wouldn't we all be serial killers by now?


I'd bet a ton of money that the people who proposed this go home and watch a bunch of crime dramas on major cable networks and are perfectly okay with that. 

Regardless, videogames, TV, movies, etc are just lame excuses for lazy and lack of proper parenting. Taxing violent video games is a stupid, useless measure that is only going to piss off people who like those kinds of games. It deters and does zero to help the problem as a whole other than basically allowing them to shrug and say "but we did something!"


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

I will always stick by this that if I see someone that has any kind of faith-based biases I will absolutely and very highly recommend that people do _*NOT*_ support them no matter which party they belong to. 

Just because she's a Muslim she does not have a right to be anti-semitic. And no matter how many ways you spin this, she is antisemitic. She should not be in congress and should be asked to resign. 










The lack of calls for resignation over her anti-Jew beliefs is extremely worrying.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Mueller investigation continuing to crumble, Dems constantly fighting among themselves, Trump the voice of reason. :banderas


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094683125526003712

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094964052558823424





Burn, you donkeys. :heston

Meanwhile let's hope Trump's rhetoric about the Iranian people "deserving better" restrains itself to tweets and diplomatic pressure. :deandre


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

"diplomatic pressure" means smuggling guns and money to rebels

or giving them to saudi arabia to smuggle to rebels

:thumbsup


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Aaaan there's the 2020 slogan: "The Country is Doing Well!!" 

"Jared, what's the projected cost of 50,000,000,000 hats with that new slogan for us?"


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Aaaan there's the 2020 slogan: "The Country is Doing Well!!"
> 
> "Jared, what's the projected cost of 50,000,000,000 hats with that new slogan for us?"


"All is well"

"Nothing to see here"


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

KAGA

Keep America Great... Again?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> I will always stick by this that if I see someone that has any kind of faith-based biases I will absolutely and very highly recommend that people do _*NOT*_ support them no matter which party they belong to.
> 
> Just because she's a Muslim she does not have a right to be anti-semitic. And no matter how many ways you spin this, she is antisemitic. She should not be in congress and should be asked to resign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of calls for resignation over her anti-Jew beliefs is extremely worrying.



How is what she said anti-semetic.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is what she said anti-semetic.


You know I don't like playing semantics. You know how Christians say that "well let's just *hear* the idea that Intelligent Design is a legit theory?" ... The wrap it up in a false facade of simple "scientific curiosity" ... Yeah. The root of that their belief in the creation myth. Also, you're aware of racist dog-whistles, right?

Well, this is the Muslim version of the dog whistle. They hide their anti-Jew sentiment behind claiming that they're only against Israel. What is the underlying belief and culturally shaped attitude that creates this fear mongering against Israel? Their own culturally held beliefs that teach them to be against Jews from the day they are born. Most of them simply do not and refuse to break away from those attitudes and the real disdain is against Jews parading as disdain for Israel's policies.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You know I don't like playing semantics. You know how Christians say that "well let's just *hear* the idea that Intelligent Design is a legit theory?" ... The wrap it up in a false facade of simple "scientific curiosity" ... Yeah. The root of that their belief in the creation myth. Also, you're aware of racist dog-whistles, right?
> 
> Well, this is the Muslim version of the dog whistle. They hide their anti-Jew sentiment behind claiming that they're only against Israel. What is the underlying belief and culturally shaped attitude that creates this fear mongering against Israel? Their own culturally held beliefs that teach them to be against Jews from the day they are born. Most of them simply do not and refuse to break away from those attitudes and the real disdain is against Jews parading as disdain for Israel's policies.


What is the exact quote people are saying was anti-Semitic? Maybe I am just missing something.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What is the exact quote people are saying was anti-Semitic? Maybe I am just missing something.


She linked the Republicans support for Israel to a pro-Israeli lobby directly and then claimed that she's against lobbying as a whole. 

I think this is Strike two for her. 

She supports the BDS movement which is anti-semitic in nature. That's strike 1.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> *She linked the Republicans support for Israel to a pro-Israeli lobby directly and then claimed that she's against lobbying as a whole.
> *
> I think this is Strike two for her.
> 
> She supports the BDS movement which is anti-semitic in nature. That's strike 1.


Don't see how that is anti-semitic. 

I don't know enough about BDS to comment on if its anti-semitic or not.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> "diplomatic pressure" means smuggling guns and money to rebels
> 
> or giving them to saudi arabia to smuggle to rebels
> 
> :thumbsup


No, god damn it deep you neocon. :lol Just keep them diplomatically and economically isolated.

Ilhan has a bad history of anti-Semitic comments that are clearly anti-Jewish rather than anti-Israel in nature. She also has connections with actually flagrantly anti-Semitic individuals. If people wanna say Trump dog whistled over a meme that didn't say anything about Israel or Jewish people, then she might as well be an out-and-out Nazi by their standards.

Hitler did have an affinity for Muslims. :mj


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> No, god damn it deep you neocon. :lol Just keep them diplomatically and economically isolated.
> 
> Ilhan has a bad history of anti-Semitic comments that are clearly anti-Jewish rather than anti-Israel in nature. She also has connections with actually flagrantly anti-Semitic individuals. If people wanna say Trump dog whistled over a meme that didn't say anything about Israel or Jewish people, then she might as well be an out-and-out Nazi by their standards.
> 
> Hitler did have an affinity for Muslims. :mj


They did and do have an affinity for Hitler :draper2

I'm just saying that's what "diplomatic pressure" means all those CIA guys implanted in the State Department at the embassies and Foggy Bottom gotta have _something_ to do

Economic isolation? Your non-interventionist card gonna get revoked with that kinda talk! :cudi

Fuck the mullahs they're in a death-struggle with Saudi Arabia for the most repugnant Islamic government in the world along with being in a death-struggle for Saudi Arabia for top Islamic government in the world. Erdogan working hard to get the Turkish government caught up with them

There's zero chance that some Muslims are ever gonna stop getting into fights with literally the entire rest of the world until all three of those governments are fucking gone-zo. If they do it goes all the way up to like 5%


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Don't see how that is anti-semitic.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know enough about BDS to comment on if its anti-semitic or not.


It's her attitude towards Jews that drives her to be anti Israeli. Take it from the vast 34+ year experience I have within Muslim communities to know when they use their disdain for Israel as a cover for their antisemitism.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> She linked the Republicans support for Israel to a pro-Israeli lobby directly and then claimed that she's against lobbying as a whole.
> 
> I think this is Strike two for her.
> 
> She supports the BDS movement which is anti-semitic in nature. That's strike 1.
> 
> ***
> 
> It's her attitude towards Jews that drives her to be anti Israeli. Take it from the vast 34+ year experience I have within Muslim communities to know when they use their disdain for Israel as a cover for their antisemitism.


Strike three, she used the 'Jews trick everybody' line on twatter in 2012

Most people don't really comprehend how deeply rooted and completely pervasive anti-Semitism is in modern Islamic culture


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Strike three, she used the 'Jews trick everybody' line on twatter in 2012


Hey. Nothing unites the right and left than their collective disdain for "Israel".

The same individuals who constantly talk about racist dog whistles haven't yet added "Israel" to their list of such dog whistles.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Hey. Nothing unites the right and left than their collective disdain for "Israel".
> 
> The same individuals who constantly talk about racist dog whistles haven't yet added "Israel" to their list of such dog whistles.


It appears that disdain for "Israel" is more acceptable in mainstream left-wing politics than mainstream right-wing politics right now, in the United States anyway. In Europe the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism is about equal on both sides. Contemporary right-wing anti-Semitism is more likely to violently attack Jews directly while contemporary left-wing anti-Semitism is more about making it easier for Jews to be attacked violently by others (Muslims). I don't see how one is worse than the other the end result of both is violence against Jews


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> It's her attitude towards Jews that drives her to be anti Israeli. Take it from the vast 34+ year experience I have within Muslim communities to know when they use their disdain for Israel as a cover for their antisemitism.


Ok so if someone else made the same comment it wouldn't be viewed as anti-semitic but since her past attitude toward Jews is what makes it seem that way? I can see that if that is what you are saying.

Thanks for explaining why you think it was.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> She linked the Republicans support for Israel to a pro-Israeli lobby directly and then claimed that she's against lobbying as a whole.
> 
> I think this is Strike two for her.
> 
> She supports the BDS movement which is anti-semitic in nature. That's strike 1.


Think it's past strike 2, didn't see all her tweets until now.

Funny, the people always on about dog whistles seem to be ignoring these ones. :laugh:

Seems like half the new women politicians touted as being a great move are anti-Semitics.. 

Guess the woman's march is only the beginning of the fiasco!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Oh of course it's only going to get worse because the anti-Semitic BDS movement has its roots in academia ... And that's where they are literally poisoning future generations.

Those unaware of BDS, it's basically a movement in academia to block *everything* from Israel. To prevent Israelis from featuring in journals, research, get invited to college for speeches etc. They want to expand that to full social and economic sanctions on Israel because they falsely believe that it is an apartheid state without having to prove that it is. They ignore the history that predates the creation of Israel. Ignore that every palestinian was offered citizenship to neighboring states. Ignores the decades of terrorism. The decades of entire Muslim nations fighting and losing wars to Israel. Ignore the times Israelis have tried to offer peace and gotten rebuked. Ignores everything about how Arabs in Israel have better living conditions than arabs in muslim countries etc etc. 

It is one of the most RACIST filthy organizations to ever come out of modern academia. As bad as the Muslim Brotherhood and worse than the MSA. Because it's also drawing in well meaning ignoramuses as well as hardcore anti-semetic non Muslims. And it is obviously drawing in Muslims by the tens of thousands for obvious reasons (one of which is that 95-97% of all muslims dislike/hate jews as proven by research time and time again). 

They are literally seeing it as their calling against *Israel* ... It's disgusting. And the potential for violence is huge.

A vote for an Arab Muslim in congress is very likely a vote for anti-semitism whether you are an anti-semite yourself or not.


----------



## CamillePunk

Anti-Semites on the right are fringe weirdos who get no play in the media. Anti-Semites on the left are elected officials and organizers of major left-wing political events. Pretending it's a problem of equal magnitude on both sides is incredibly inaccurate. Even Steve King is staunchly pro-Israel. :lol

Not to mention that the anti-Semitic Richard Spencer alt right types aren't even really right wing. They're generally in favor of socialism, they just want it to be a whites only socialist country. :mj






Interesting Joe Rogan interview with Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, whose main campaign policy proposal is Universal Basic Income as a means of alleviating job loss from automation. 

It's refreshing to at least hear from a Democrat who doesn't blame the rise of Trump on racism and conspiracy theories, but rather the loss of manufacturing jobs, even if I'm personally skeptical of UBI and the dangers of automation. A good conversation to be had for sure.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

White boy on the cover of Esquire made some crybabies cry. 

That's right covers of magazines still ignite furors what a time to be alive.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> White boy on the cover of Esquire made some crybabies cry.
> 
> That's right covers of magazines still ignite furors what a time to be alive.


There are still physical magazines? 

What a backwards time we live in amirite


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

More on Ilhan Omar:

https://www.meforum.org/islamist-watch/57764/ilhan-omar-to-speak-alongside-charity-official



> Despite battling accusations of anti-Semitism, Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) is due to speak this month at a fundraising event alongside a senior charity official who has published social media posts praising the killing of Jews.
> 
> Islamic Relief USA is hosting a fundraising dinner for aid to Yemen on February 23. Rep. Ilhan Omar is due to speak alongside senior Islamic Relief USA official Yousef Abdallah, who was widely criticized in 2017 after the Middle East Forum found he had expressed violently anti-Semitic ideas on his social media accounts.
> 
> Abdallah, who serves as Islamic Relief USA's "operations manager," shared a "very beautiful" modernized version of a Palestinian folk story about a 'resistance hero' named Zharif al-Tawl, who took revenge against Jewish "gangs" - which had purportedly attacked a Palestinian village - by providing guns to "kill more than 20 jews" and "fire rockets at Tel Aviv."
> 
> Other posts referred to Jews as "stinking," and claim "the Jews put the outside wall of Al Aqsa [the mosque in Jerusalem] on fire." Abdallah also 'liked' a comment on his Facebook post that calls on God to wreak "revenge on the damned rapists Zionists. O God they are no challenge for you . Shake the Earth beneath their feet and destroy them as you destroyed the peoples of ʿĀd, Thamud and Lot."
> 
> And in 2014, after Republican politician Chris Christie apologized for referring to the West Bank and Gaza as "occupied," Abdallah wrote: "Christie kneels down on his knees before the jewish lords and says 'I am sorry'. Only money makes stuff like this happen. Mr. Christie.. Muslims should remember this very well."
> 
> Islamic Relief USA has previously defended its senior officials' anti-Semitism, claiming that their comments had been mistranslated. However, Islamic Relief USA refused to provide alternative translations, and refused to comment on the fact that some of the anti-Semitism was expressed plainly in English.
> 
> Founded in 1984, the Islamic Relief franchise is managed by Islamic Relief Worldwide, its headquarters in the U.K. Today, Islamic Relief is one of the largest Islamic charities in the world, but the franchise is increasingly facing questions from governments across the globe abouts its connections to extremism and terror.
> 
> Over the last few years: the United Arab Emirates designated its headquarters as a terrorist organization; UBS and HSBC shut down its bank accounts; the Bangladeshi government banned it from working directly with Rohingya refugees over reported fears about radicalization; Germany's Federal Court of Auditors opened an investigation into Islamic Relief Germany's use of taxpayer funds; a Swedish government report named it as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood; the U.K. Charity Commission started investigating its involvement with an extremist preacher who advocated the death penalty for homosexuals; the Tunisian government is reported to have investigated allegations that Islamic Relief was funding jihadists on the Libyan border; and Members of the U.S. Congress have launched an inquiry into a reported FBI and IRS investigation of Islamic Relief's activities.


Very bad look for her. Not only was she going to speak alongside someone who has been caught praising and expressing violence against Jews but the organization she's speaking for has been investigated for connections to terrorism and extremism by multiple governments. Islamic Relief themselves have been caught lying claiming that they never invited Mr Abdallah when there is evidence that they clearly did. Very suspect indeed.










It's a shame because the topic at hand is definitely one that should be talked about. But it's clear either Ilham Omar and her advisers are ignorant and unaware of Islamic Relief's connections to terrorism/extremism and Mr Abdallah's obvious anti-semitic views or she agrees with their worldview. Either way, I'm less likely to give her the benefit of the doubt after learning this.

Here's some more information on Islamic Relief, there's also a full report which I will read later:

https://www.meforum.org/7403/islamic-relief-charity-extremism-terror



> A new Middle East Forum report uncovers the extremism and terror connections of the largest Islamic charity in the western world: Islamic Relief.
> 
> Despite receiving over $80 million from western taxpayers over the last ten years -- including over $700,000 from the U.S. government -- Islamic Relief is a prominent Islamist institution, closely tied to Muslim Brotherhood networks, with branches in over 20 countries.
> 
> Our report examines Islamic Relief's extremist links. We look at its key branches, its links to dangerous Islamist movements, its connections to the terrorist group Hamas, its officials' extremism and its promotion of extremist preachers who incite hatred against both moderate Muslims and non-Muslims.
> 
> *What is Islamic Relief?*
> 
> Islamic Relief is one of the largest Islamic charities in the world. Founded in 1984, Islamic Relief today maintains branches and offices in over 20 countries and it has reported franchise-wide income of hundreds of millions of dollars. Western governments provide a significant proportion of this income.
> 
> *Extremists at the Helm*
> 
> Islamic Relief was founded - and continues to be managed - by prominent Islamist operatives. A few examples of prominent current and former IR trustees and officials include:
> 
> * Hany El-Banna OBE – founder of Islamic Relief and a former trustee of several charities accused of links to Islamist extremism and terror. El-Banna established Islamic Relief while a student involved in Muslim Brotherhood circles. In 2016, El-Banna gave an interview to Al-Aqsa Voice, the official radio station of the terrorist group Hamas, during which he urged "a strong coalition" between civil society organizations and the Hamas government to "repel any foreign ideas and malignant intrusions."
> 
> * Essam El Haddad – co-founder of Islamic Relief and the foreign policy advisor to Egypt's (now-deposed) Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi. Egyptian law enforcement alleges that Haddad used Islamic Relief to finance the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian prosecution also claimed that Haddad was "financing terrorism by using global charities such as Islamic Relief."
> 
> * Khaled Lamada – chairman of Islamic Relief's USA branch and the founder of Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights, one of the Brotherhood's key lobbying arms in the United States. Writing and sharing Facebook posts mostly in Arabic, Lamada has circulated text praising the "jihad" of the "Mujahidin of Egypt" for "causing the Jews many defeats." He has republished claims on Facebook that praise Hamas for inflicting a "huge defeat" against the "Zionist entity."
> 
> * Issam Al-Bashir – a prominent member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, a body of Muslim Brotherhood clerics led by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi, who has advocated killing Jews and homosexuals. Bashir previously served as the Minister of Guidance and Religious Endowments in the genocidal Sudanese regime.
> Ahmed Al-Rawi – a former director of Islamic Relief Worldwide, who also served as a director of the Muslim Association of Britain, which the Daily Telegraph has named as the Muslim Brotherhood's "main declared British affiliate." In 2004, Al-Rawi signed a declaration in support of jihad against British and American forces in Iraq.
> 
> *Terror Finance*
> 
> Islamic Relief has long been accused of funding terror. Both Israel and the United Arab Emirates have designated Islamic Relief as a terror-financing organization. In 2005, Russian authorities accused Islamic Relief of supporting terrorism in Chechnya. And in 2012, the Swiss banking giant UBS closed down Islamic Relief's accounts and "blocked donations coming from its customers to the charity," reportedly over terror financing fears. Four years later, HSBC did the same.
> 
> In the Gaza Strip, Islamic Relief funds organizations closely linked to the terrorist organization, Hamas. In February 2015, for example, Islamic Relief UK, using Swedish monies, funded a project run by the Al-Falah Benevolent Society to provide aid to "displaced families." Al-Falah is run by senior Hamas figure, Ramadan Tamboura, and Jamal Hamdi Al-Haddad, who manages a Hamas-run Hebrew language program for Palestinians in Gaza titled "Know Your Enemy."
> 
> Another key partner for Islamic Relief branches in Gaza is the Gaza Zakat Committee, also known as the Islamic Zakat Society (IZS). IZS works closely with the Hamas government. It is managed by a prominent Hamas preacher named Hazem Al-Sirraj, a former student of Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin. In 2018, Islamic Relief Worldwide submitted an appeal for $420,000 for IZS through a United Nations fundraising scheme.
> 
> Islamic Relief also maintains financial links with several terrorism-linked groups in the Middle East, including the Charitable Society for Social Welfare, which was founded by Al-Qaeda terrorist and "Bin Laden loyalist" Abdul Majeed Al-Zindani.
> 
> *Hate Preachers*
> 
> The Middle East Forum has identified dozens of prominent extremist clerics and Islamist activists who continue to speak regularly at Islamic Relief events. Examples include Abdullah Hakim Quick, who claims that the Islamic position on homosexuality is "death"; Haitham Al-Haddad, who describes Jews as "pigs and apes"; and Abdul Nasir Jangda, who defends sex slavery and advocates killing apostates.
> 
> In April 2017, The Times of London reported that Britain's Charity Commission was investigating the charity's decision to organize a tour with Yasir Qadhi, an extremist preacher who had previously told audiences that killing homosexuals was part of his religion.
> 
> *Governmental Support*
> 
> Islamic Relief has enjoyed a great deal of access to prominent government officials. In the U.S., Islamic Relief officials have dined at the White House, accepted appointments as advisors to the State Department, and enjoyed speeches by administration officials at Islamic Relief events. In the U.K., Islamic Relief events have featured speeches by Prince Charles, the deputy Prime Minister and various cabinet ministers.
> 
> In fact, Islamic Relief enjoys the support of taxpayers and politicians across the globe. The Middle East Forum has identified over $80 million in grants and donor matching schemes from Western governments, the European Union and the United Nations since 2007.
> 
> *Private Support*
> 
> Between 2000 and 2016, American community and corporate foundations have given Islamic Relief over $4.3 million. The largest single donation was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which handed Islamic Relief almost $1.4 million.
> 
> Islamic Relief also benefits from the credibility of its non-Muslims partners and admirers. Even prominent Jewish charities have worked closely with Islamic Relief, despite its long history of promoting anti-Semitism. Leading newspapers and cable news networks encourage readers to donate to Islamic Relief and produce regular puff-pieces about Islamic Relief's officials and their work.
> 
> *Waking Up to the Threat*
> 
> Islamic Relief's claims to be a moderate organization are gradually losing credibility. Since Islamic Relief was designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, a number of Western countries have starting examining the international charity's activities.
> 
> In the United States, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service and Office of Personnel Management reportedly put together a criminal case relating to Islamic Relief in 2016. The Middle East Forum submitted requests for documents concerning Islamic Relief under the Freedom of Information Act to the agencies involved. In January 2018, the OPM confirmed the existence of a criminal investigation, stating: "We are withholding the records … as they were compiled for law enforcement purposes and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing enforcement proceedings, by—for example—suggesting the scope of an investigation and alerting potential subjects as to the nature of the Government's evidence and strategy."
> 
> In Germany, in November 2016, Christian Gaebler, a Secretary of State in the Berlin Senate, responded to a written question about Islamic Relief's Islamist connections by declaring: "Islamic Relief Germany has connections to organizations surrounding the Muslim Brotherhood." In January 2017, however, Germany's Federal Court of Auditors announced it was investigating Islamic Relief Deutschland for a "potential misuse of the aid money." Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, a German radio station, reported in 2017 that the investigation is suspected to relate to the movement of funds from Islamic Relief Deutschland to the Islamic Relief Worldwide headquarters in Britain.
> 
> In Sweden, according to a recent government report into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Relief is a "key organization" in providing "credibility" to the Muslim Brotherhood. The report reveals that Muslim Brotherhood official Haytham Rahmeh is part of Islamic Relief Sweden, and notes that "[Rahmeh] has been involved in supporting militias linked to the Muslim Brotherhood in the Syrian conflict, through lobbying and weapons purchases."
> 
> *Recommendations*
> 
> For decades, Western governments have bestowed funds and legitimacy on Islamic Relief. This patronage has ensured that a small group of Islamist students and activists from a city in England would come to manage a vast global franchise that has the ear of Princes and Presidents, while serving as the vanguard for Islamism in the West and a fig-leaf for the extremism that grips Muslim communities.
> 
> Western governments must stop funding Islamic Relief. All government partnerships with Islamic Relief must end. Further, legislators in both the U.S. and Europe should encourage law enforcement agencies and charity regulators to look into Islamic Relief's activities in the Gaza Strip and Syria, and examine allegations made by Egyptian prosecutors that Islamic Relief branches were funding Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood government. Politicians should also appeal to international bodies to exclude Islamic Relief and halt all funding.
> 
> Ultimately, if Western governments are serious about fighting the intolerant, divisive and violent effects of global Islamism, then Islamic Relief must be shut down. It is the flagship institution of lawful Islamism in the West. There are certainly Muslim charities that do not promote extremism and subsidize terrorism. Why should taxpayers all over the world fund a charity that does?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://quillette.com/2019/02/10/pu...o1waUxXTaS5M5zMJ_whXW5CKmeRxzXbI0Ysj9O98IBBng



> Bad teaching is a common explanation given for the disastrously inadequate public education received by America’s most vulnerable populations. This is a myth. Aside from a few lemons who were notable for their rarity, the majority of teachers I worked with for nine years in New York City’s public school system were dedicated, talented professionals. Before joining the system I was mystified by the schools’ abysmal results. I too assumed there must be something wrong with the teaching. This could not have been farther from the truth.
> 
> Teaching French and Italian in NYC high schools I finally figured out why this was, although it took some time, because the real reason was so antithetical to the prevailing mindset. I worked at three very different high schools over the years, spanning a fairly representative sample. That was a while ago now, but the system has not improved since, as the fundamental problem has not been acknowledged, let alone addressed. It would not be hard, or expensive, to fix.
> 
> *Washington Irving High School, 2001–2004*
> 
> My NYC teaching career began a few days before September 11, 2001 at Washington Irving High School. It was a short honeymoon period; the classes watched skeptically as I introduced them to a method of teaching French using virtually no English. Although the students weren’t particularly engaged, they remained respectful. During first period on that awful day there was a horrendous split-second noise. A plane flew right overhead a mere moment before it blasted into the north tower of the World Trade Center. At break time word was spreading among the staff. Both towers were hit and one had already come down. When I went to my next class I told the students what had happened. There was an eruption of rejoicing at the news. Many students clapped and whooped their approval, some getting out of their seats to do a sort of victory dance. It was an eye-opener, and indicative of what was to come.
> 
> The next three years were a nightmare. The school always teetered on the verge of chaos. The previous principal had just been dismissed and shunted to another school district. Although it was never stated, all that was expected of teachers was to keep students in their seats and the volume down. This was an enormous school on five floors, with students cordoned off into separate programs. There was even a short-lived International Baccalaureate Program, but it quickly failed. Whatever the program, however, the atmosphere of the school was one of danger and deceit. Guards patrolled the hallways, sometimes the police had to intervene. Even though the security guards carefully screened the students at the metal detectors posted at every entrance, occasionally arms crept in. Girls sometimes managed to get razors in, the weapon of choice against rivals for boys’ attention. Although I don’t know of other arms found in the school (teachers were kept in the dark as much as possible), one particularly disruptive and dangerous boy was stabbed one afternoon right outside school. It appears he came to a violent death a few years later. What a tragic waste of human potential.
> 
> As the weeks dragged painfully into months, it became apparent that the students wouldn’t learn anything. It was dumbfounding. It was all I could do to keep them quiet; that is, seated and talking among themselves. Sometimes I had to stop girls from grooming themselves or each other. A few brave souls tried to keep up with instruction. A particularly good history teacher once told me that she interrupted a conversation between two girls, asking them to pay attention to the lesson. One of them looked up at her scornfully and sneered, “I don’t talk to teachers,” turning her back to resume their chat. She told me that the best school she ever worked at was in Texas, where her principal managed not only to suspend the most disruptive students for long periods, he also made sure they were not admitted during that time to any other school in the district. It worked; they got good results.
> 
> This was unthinkable in New York, where “in-house suspension” was the only punitive measure. It would be “discriminatory” to keep the students at home. The appropriate paperwork being filed, the most outrageously disruptive students went for a day or two to a room with other serious offenders. The anti-discrimination laws under which we worked took all power away from the teachers and put it in the hands of the students.
> 
> Throughout Washington Irving there was an ethos of hostile resistance. Those who wanted to learn were prevented from doing so. Anyone who “cooperated with the system” was bullied. No homework was done. Students said they couldn’t do it because if textbooks were found in their backpacks, the offending students would be beaten up. This did not appear to be an idle threat. Too many students told their teachers the same thing. There were certainly precious few books being brought home.
> 
> I tried everything imaginable to overcome student resistance. Nothing worked. At one point I rearranged the seating to enable the students who wanted to engage to come to the front of the classroom. The principal was informed and I was reprimanded. This was “discriminatory.” The students went back to their chosen seats near their friends. Aside from imposing order, the only thing I succeeded at was getting the students to stand silently during the Pledge of Allegiance and mumble a few songs in French. But it was a constant struggle as I tried to balance going through the motions of teaching with keeping them quiet.
> 
> The abuse from students never let up. We were trained to absorb it. By the time I left, however, I had a large folder full of the complaint forms I’d filled out documenting the most egregious insults and harassment. There was a long process to go through each time. The student had a parent or other representative to state their case at the eventual hearing and I had my union rep. I lost every case.
> 
> Actually, the girls were meaner than the boys. The latter did not engage at all. They simply ignored me. Except for the delinquents among them, the boys didn’t make trouble. The girls on the other hand could be malicious. One girl even called me a “fucking white bitch.” It was confidence-destroying and extremely stressful. I was often reported to the principal for one transgression or another, like taking a sheet of paper from a student. Once I was even reprimanded for calmly taking my own cellphone from a girl who’d held on to it for half an hour, refusing all my requests to hand it back. The administration was consistently on the side of the student. The teacher was the fall guy, every time.
> 
> The abuse ranged from insults to outright violence, although I myself was never physically attacked. Stories abounded, however, of hard substances like bottles of water being thrown at us, teachers getting smacked on the head from behind, pushed in stairwells, and having doors slammed in our faces. The language students used was consistently obscene. By far the most commonly heard word throughout the school, literally hundreds of times a day, like a weapon fired indiscriminately, was “*****.” The most amazing story from those painful years was the time I said it myself.
> 
> Sometimes you just have had enough. One day a girl sitting towards the back of the classroom shouted at some boy up front, “Yo! *****! Stop that!” I stood up as tall as I could and said in my most supercilious voice, “I don’t know which particular ***** the young lady is referring to, but whoever it is, would you please stop it.” The kids couldn’t believe their ears:
> 
> “Yo, miss! You can’t say that!”
> “Why not? You say it all the time.”
> “Uhh… Because you’re old.”
> “That’s not why. Come on, tell the truth.”
> 
> This went on for a bit, until one brave lad piped up: “Because you’re white.” “Okay,” I said, “because I’m white. Well what if I said to you, ‘You’re not allowed to say some word because you’re black.’ Would that be okay?” They admitted that it wouldn’t. No one seemed to report it. To this day, it’s puzzling that I didn’t lose my job over that incident. I put it down to basic human decency.
> 
> Of course my teaching method had to be largely scrapped. The kids didn’t listen to me in either French or English. But they had a certain begrudging respect for me, I think because I told them the truth. I’d plead with them, “Look, kids, you’re destroying yourselves. Yes, the system stinks, but it’s the only show in town. Please, please don’t do this to yourselves. Education is your only way out.” But it was useless. I didn’t possess whatever magic some teachers have that explains their success, however limited.
> 
> Aside from the history teacher from Texas, other Washington Irving educators stood out as extraordinary, and this in an unimaginably bad learning environment. One was a cheerful Lebanese math teacher who had been felled as a child by polio. He called himself “the million dollar man” because of his handicapped parking permit, quite a handy advantage in Manhattan. Although he could only walk on crutches, he kept those kids in line! His secret? A lovely way about him and complete but polite disdain for his students. Where he came from, students were not allowed to act that way. Another was a German teacher, the wife of a Lutheran minister. Her imposing presence—she fit the valkyrie stereotype—kept those mouths closed. You could hear a pin drop in her unusually tidy classroom, and she managed to teach some German to the few hardy souls who wanted to learn it.
> 
> The most impressive of all was a handsome black American from Minnesota. He towered over us all, both physically and what the French call morally. He exuded an aura that inspired something like awe in his colleagues and students. I think he taught social studies. He was the only teacher who got away with blacking out his classroom door window, which added to his mystique. He engaged his students by concentrating their efforts on putting together a fashion show at the end of each school year. They designed and produced the outfits they strutted proudly on the makeshift catwalk, looking as elegant and confident as any supermodel. To tumultuous applause. They deserved it.
> 
> Although the school was always on the verge of hysteria and violence, it had all the trappings of the typical American high school. There were class trips and talent shows, rings and year books—even caps and gowns and graduation. High school diplomas were among the trappings, handed out to countless 12th graders with, from my observation, a 7th grade education. The elementary schools had a better record. But everyone knew that once the kids hit puberty, it became virtually impossible under the laws in force to teach those who were steeped in ghetto and gangster culture, and those—the majority—who were bullied into succumbing to it.
> 
> Students came to school for their social life. The system had to be resisted. It was never made explicit that it was a “white” system that was being rejected, but it was implicit in oft-made remarks. Youngsters would say things like, “You can’t say that word, that be a WHITE word!” It did no good to remind students that some of the finest oratory in America came from black leaders like Martin Luther King and some of the best writing from authors like James Baldwin. I would tell them that there was nothing wrong with speaking one’s own dialect; dialects in whatever language tend to be colorful and expressive, but it was important to learn standard English as well. It opens minds and doors. Every new word learned adds to one’s wealth, and there’s nothing like grammar for organizing one’s thoughts.
> 
> It all fell on deaf ears. It was impossible to dispel the students’ delusions. Astonishingly, they believed that they would do just fine and have great futures once they got to college! They didn’t seem to know that they had very little chance of getting into anything but a community college, if that. Sadly, the kids were convinced of one thing: As one girl put it, “I don’t need an 85 average to get into Hunter; I’m black, I can get in with a 75.” They were actually encouraged to be intellectually lazy.
> 
> The most Dantesque scene I witnessed at Washington Irving was a “talent show” staged one spring afternoon. The darkened auditorium was packed with excited students, jittery guidance counselors, teachers, and guards. Music blasted from the loudspeakers, ear-splitting noise heightened the frenzy. To my surprise and horror, the only talent on display was merely what comes naturally. Each act was a show of increasingly explicit dry humping. As each group of performers vied with the previous act to be more outrageous, chaos was breaking out in the screaming audience. Some bright person in charge finally turned off the sound, shut down the stage lights, and lit up the auditorium, causing great consternation among the kids, but it quelled the growing mass hysteria. The students came to their senses. The guards (and NYC policemen if memory serves) managed to usher them out to safety.
> 
> Once, on two consecutive days, enormous Snapple dispensers on a mezzanine were pushed to the floor below. Vending machines had to be removed for the students’ safety. On another occasion, two chairs were chucked out of the building, injuring a woman below. Bad press and silly excuses ensued. Another time, word spread that a gang of girls was going to beat up a Mexican girl. There was a huge crush of students who preferred to skip the next class to go see the brawl. The hallway was packed, there was pushing and shoving, causing a stampede. I was caught in it and fell to the ground; kids stepped over me elbowing each other in the crush of bodies. Eventually, a student helped me to my feet. Badly shaken, I was taken to the nurse’s office. My blood pressure was dangerously high; I was encouraged to see a doctor, but declined. My husband came and brought me home.
> 
> Shortly thereafter, the teachers union (United Federation of Teachers, or UFT) fought the Department of Education, which had recently loosened the already lax disciplinary rulings. They organized a press conference and asked me to speak at it about the worsening security situation. The principal refused me permission to leave even though my supportive assistant principal found a fellow language teacher to take over my classes. As soon as school was out, though, a union rep implored me to rush downtown with him as the press conference was still going on. Questioned by reporters in front of the cameras, I spoke about the stampede. There was a brief segment on the local evening news. The principal was furious, and the next morning screamed at me in the lobby that I was a publicity seeker who just wanted to give the school a bad name. However, the UFT was successful in this case, as the former, less inadequate disciplinary measures were restored, and things went back to their usual level of simmering chaos.
> 
> Although it was clear that my generally robust mental state was deteriorating, I did not want to quit. The UFT encouraged me to go into counseling; I didn’t see the point but acquiesced and agreed to see one of their social workers for therapy. Her stance seemed to be, “What is a nice girl like you doing in a place like that?” I started to write about the situation to people in authority. The UFT president Randi Weingarten and the DoE head Joel Klein were among the recipients of my letters detailing the problems we faced. I visited my local city councilman, who listened politely. I did not receive a single response.
> 
> Soon thereafter, my beloved husband died after a brief illness. The students knew, so were somewhat subdued when I returned to work. But one afternoon a girl, I forget why, muttered “you fucking bitch.” I finally broke. I screamed at the whole class and insisted that they all get out of the classroom. Furiously. Any physical contact was strictly forbidden between staff and students, so my voice alone did the job. It was also strictly forbidden to send one student out of the classroom, never mind the whole class. The good-hearted teacher next door came to my aid. The administration took pity on me and did not press charges.
> 
> In the meantime, the UFT somehow found the “nice girl” a job at Brooklyn Technical High School. There was one going for a French and Italian teacher, as there were not enough classes for another full-time French teacher.
> 
> *Brooklyn Tech, 2004–2009*
> 
> Brooklyn Tech was considered one of New York’s “top three” high schools. Students had to test in. My first principal was a big, jolly black man, but he got caught on a minor offense and was sent packing. His misdeed was bringing his daughter to school in New York from their home in New Jersey, which, although against the rules, was hardly unheard of. There was a $20 million restructuring fund in the offing for his replacement. The new principal ended the unruly after-school program that purportedly prepared underprivileged children for the entrance exam. Disruptive behavior subsequently dropped considerably.
> 
> The new principal ‘s word was law. Under the last-in-first-out system, my job was never secure. Most students were the children of recently arrived immigrants from Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. A minority were from older Irish and Jewish immigrant families. The many obvious cultural differences were fascinating.
> 
> Our assistant principal was an amusing old cynic who loved a hassle-free life. Under him, teaching was a pleasure. It was hard work, as classes were large and students handed in assignments to be graded, but it was rewarding. On Friday afternoons he would announce, “Okay, girls and boys, it’s time to go to the bank,” our signal that we could leave with impunity before the legally stipulated hour. However, some teachers always stayed behind for hours on end to avoid bringing work home.
> 
> Despite the disruptive students at first, the classes were manageable. What the youngsters lacked in academic rigor, they made up for in verve. However, as the years passed, micro-management became more burdensome. Supervision became stricter, with multiple class visits and more meetings. Some “experts” up the DoE ladder decided that we had to produce written evidence that our lesson plans conformed to a rigid formula. The new directives did not take into account that foreign-language teaching requires instilling four different skill sets (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and therefore a different, more flexible methodological approach. Unfortunately, our easy-going assistant principal had his fill of the worsening bureaucratic overload and retired. Instead of an eccentric opera buff with a sense of humor, an obedient apparatchik would enforce the new rules.
> 
> In the spring of my 5th year there, he informed me that I had been chosen to replace the Advanced Placement French teacher, as her results were poor. I did the AP training course and prepared for the new challenge that would begin in September. The day before school began, however, he phoned to say that my job was terminated. “There wasn’t enough interest in French” to justify my position, apparently. This was despite vociferous protests from students and parents. I would like to know if, as a member of the UFT’s advisory council, I had asked the principal too many questions. He was so kind as to find me a place at a “boutique” school way down in Brooklyn’s Flatlands.
> 
> *Victory Collegiate High School, 2009–2010*
> 
> Victory Collegiate High School seemed promising. It could boast of Bill Gates money, and was one of only two or three new experimental schools co-located in what was once the venerable South Shore High School. It served the local, partly middle-class, partly ghettoized black community. The principal informed me proudly that the students wore uniforms, and no cellphones were allowed. The classes were tiny in comparison to other high schools, and there were no disciplinary problems.
> 
> Despite the devastating blow to my career, I set out hopefully on the long commute to Canarsie. The metal detectors should have clued me in. Any pretense of imposing uniforms was eventually abandoned. Cellphones were a constant nuisance. Administrators turned a blind eye to the widespread anti-social behavior.
> 
> It would be repetitive to go over the plentiful examples of the abuse teachers suffered at the hands of the students. Suffice it to say, it was Washington Irving all over again, but in miniature. The principal talked a good game, believing that giving “shout-outs” and being a pal to the students were accomplishing great things, but he actually had precious little control over them. What made matters worse, the teaching corps was a young, idealistic group, largely recruited from the non-profit Teach For America, not the leathery veterans who constituted a majority at the two previous schools. I was a weird anomaly to these youngsters. What? I didn’t feel pity for these poor children? I didn’t take it for granted that they would abuse us? The new teachers were fervent believers in the prevailing ideology that the students’ bad behavior was to be expected, and that we should educate them without question according to the hip attitudes reflected in the total absence of good literature or grammar, and a sense of history that emphasized grievance.
> 
> One example of the “literature” we were expected to teach was as racist as it was obscene. The main character was an obese, pregnant 14 year-old dropout. The argot in which it was written was probably not all that familiar to many of the students. Appalled, I asked an English teacher why the students had to read this rubbish. She was shocked at the question: we have to teach “literature the kids can relate to.” Why on earth did the school system believe that such a depraved environment as depicted in this book was representative of the very mixed group of families that inhabited the area, many of whom were led by middle-class professionals from the Caribbean? The “language arts” department (the word “English” was too Euro-centric) made one obligatory bow to Shakespeare—a version of “Romeo and Juliet” reduced to a few hundred words. It was common knowledge that the Bard was “overrated.”
> 
> My small classes faced a large photograph of Barack Obama displayed proudly in front of the classroom over the title “Notre Président.” The picture resonated as little with the students as the Pledge of Allegiance. Like at Washington Irving, all I managed to do was to get them to stand for it and sing some songs. I did have the rueful satisfaction towards the end of the year, however, of being told after the class trip, “Mary, you won’t believe it! The kids sang French songs all the way to Washington!”
> 
> In the classroom, the children did as they pleased. Since the classes were smaller, some students managed to learn a bit of French, but most obdurately ignored me. One memorable 16 year-old fresh from Chicago loved French but was contemptuous of me. She was tall and slender, quite beautiful, and in love, it seemed, with another girl in the class, who was not blessed with similar beauty. Throughout the year they were an item. I finally managed to separate them, insisting that they change seats when it became increasingly difficult to stop them from necking in the classroom. That was when, despite her love of French, the Chicago girl left my class never to return, except once, when we were watching a movie. She came in, sat down and watched with us, breezing out again at the film’s end. This was not unusual behavior. Some students had the run of the hallways, wandering around as they pleased.
> 
> As before, students engaged fully in the ancillary aspects of high school life. As before, I tried to encourage them to engage in the learning process. On one memorable occasion, I said to them: “You are not here to play, you are here to develop your intellect.” The puzzled stares this remark elicited spoke volumes. It seemed an utterly new concept to them.
> 
> The school had an exceptionally good math teacher, among other excellent ones. In November, students sat for the preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test that all juniors were required to do in preparation for the real thing in the spring. I had to proctor the first half. As instructed, I walked up and down the aisles keeping an eye on things. It all went smoothly. When the language section was over and the math part began, however, students stopped working. They sat there staring at the desk. I quietly encouraged them to make an effort, but the general response was, “I ain’t doin’ it, miss, it’s too hard.” I could not get them to change their minds; they sat doing nothing for the rest of my shift.
> 
> The preliminary test results that came back in the spring were abysmally low—despite the fact that every single response bubble on the math test had been filled in. Either the next proctor forced the kids to randomly fill in the bubbles, or some administrators did so, another example of the rampant deceit the school system indulges.
> 
> After the terrible 2010 earthquake in Haiti, a number of Haitians joined the school. These youngsters were remarkable for their good manners and desire to learn, for their outstanding gentility in fact. They provided a most refreshing change, but it didn’t last. They quickly fell into the trap of hostile resistance.
> 
> By June, things were really depressing. Not only was the academic year an utter failure, word spread that 10 girls had become pregnant. Since there were only about 90 girls in the school, this represented over 10 percent. The majority of the pregnant girls were freshmen, targeted it was said by a few “baby daddies” who prided themselves on their prowess and evolutionary success. One of them, however, was the beautiful “lesbian” from Chicago. As her jilted partner moped around, cut to the quick, it was impossible not to feel terrible for her.
> 
> Once again, I finally and suddenly broke. The threat was from an unlikely source, a big lad who was always subdued. He was in the special education program, and never gave any trouble when I substituted in that class. But one afternoon, for some unknowable reason, this usually gentle giant came up to me and said, “I gonna cut yo’ ass.” That was the final humiliation I would suffer in the New York City public school system.
> 
> I left that afternoon never to return. I left much behind: trinkets I’d brought from France, hoping to use them as prizes for the highest achievers; my beautiful edition of Les Fables de Jean de la Fontaine; class records, French magazines, CDs and other educational materials. But I brought away something priceless: an insider’s knowledge of a corrupt system.
> 
> One teacher phoned me to say that in her culture “I gonna cut yo’ ass” should not be taken literally, it just meant that he would teach me a lesson. “I don’t care,” I replied. Another called to express her astonishment that I would abandon my students. Why on earth did that matter, I answered, they hadn’t learned anything anyway. The school would hand out passing grades no matter what I did.
> 
> * * *
> 
> It is not poor teaching or a lack of money that is failing our most vulnerable populations. The real problem is an ethos of rejection that has never been openly admitted by those in authority.
> 
> Why should millions of perfectly normal adolescents, not all of them ghettoized, resist being educated? The reason is that they know deep down that due to the color of their skin, less is expected of them. This they deeply resent. How could they not resent being seen as less capable? It makes perfect psychological sense. Being very young, however, they cannot articulate their resentment, or understand the reasons for it, especially since the adults in charge hide the truth. So they take out their rage on the only ones they can: themselves and their teachers.
> 
> They also take revenge on a fraudulent system that pretends to educate them. The authorities cover up their own incompetence, and when that fails, blame the parents and teachers, or lack of funding, or “poverty,” “racism,” and so on. The media follow suit. Starting with our lawmakers, the whole country swallows the lie.
> 
> Why do precious few adults admit the truth out loud? Because in America the taboo against questioning the current orthodoxy on race is too strong and the price is too high. What is failing our most vulnerable populations is the lack of political will to acknowledge and solve the real problems. The first step is to change the ”anti-discrimination” laws that breed anti-social behavior. Disruptive students must be removed from the classroom, not to punish them but to protect the majority of students who want to learn.


This is an absolutely fascinating insight into the state of New York's inner city school system from the perspective of a former teacher who worked there for almost a decade. Definitely worth the full read. @DesolationRow I think you'll find this an interesting article especially.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> White boy on the cover of Esquire made some crybabies cry.
> 
> That's right covers of magazines still ignite furors what a time to be alive.


It's a great time to be alive!

We're seeing bigotry and racism show it's ugly head! Well as long as you hate on the right people. 

Gen-X and older Millenials who shared the same values of not caring what someone looks like and not judging people based on their skin color has been tossed aside! 

We hear about equality but how can you have equality when there is a racial hierarchy of who matters and who's opinions are valid based on Sex and Race? 

The more this stupidity is shown and talked about, the sooner real change can begin and we can ignore people who bitch about the dumbest crap, like who's on the cover of Esquire.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


>


do you believe being 'ultra rich' is a crime?


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you believe being 'ultra rich' is a crime?
Click to expand...

Legally no, morally it's reprehensible. I'd want it made an impossibility through taxation.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Legally no, morally it's reprehensible. I'd want it made an impossibility through taxation.


so if i invented or created something that everyone in the world found useful, and I charged $1 a pop, and 100 million people decided to voluntarily purchase one from me... it would 'morally reprehensible' of me to have 100 million dollars?

you'll have to explain what you mean.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally no, morally it's reprehensible. I'd want it made an impossibility through taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> so if i invented or created something that everyone in the world found useful, and I charged $1 a pop, and 100 million people decided to voluntarily purchase one from me... it would 'morally reprehensible' of me to have 100 million dollars?
> 
> you'll have to explain what you mean.
Click to expand...

Yes, because if you had $100 million dollars from $100 million dollars you've dodged every tax going. 

If you want to make up imaginary scenarios to fit your agenda pick a better one.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Yes, because if you had $100 million dollars from $100 million dollars you've dodged every tax going.
> 
> If you want to make up imaginary scenarios to fit your agenda pick a better one.


this fuckin guy :lol

uh... people become rich through consumerism. steve jobs became a billionaire because he started a company that created and invented things people bought from him. if you bought an iPhone, YOU are responsible for making him a billionaire.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> It's a great time to be alive!
> 
> We're seeing bigotry and racism show it's ugly head! Well as long as you hate on the right people.
> 
> Gen-X and older Millenials who shared the same values of not caring what someone looks like and not judging people based on their skin color has been tossed aside!
> 
> We hear about equality but how can you have equality when there is a racial hierarchy of who matters and who's opinions are valid based on Sex and Race?
> 
> The more this stupidity is shown and talked about, the sooner real change can begin and we can ignore people who bitch about the dumbest crap, like who's on the cover of Esquire.


Good point on the surface, however was this backlash on the esquire cover exactly widespread? Or just 'some' people on twitter who are just the general public - who's opinions shouldn't be taken as representation of Gen X and Millenials as you say. I see that it trended but I'm too old to know exactly what that means lol - how many people etc.

Stop me if this is not credible, but this article I cherry picked at the top of Google only uses language like 'one person posted this, another person objected etc etc.










All I'm saying is lets not make sweeping judgements about entire generations' motives based on a questionable amount of tweets, especially those who probably haven't an ounce of educated credibility to begin with.

Edit: Sorry just found it's a RAGE on social media according to Fox Phoenix:


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...al-green-girl-who-fled-to-join-isis-hgvqw765d



> On the day the caliphate suffered a mortal blow the teenage London bride of an Islamic State fighter lifted her veil. Her two infant children were dead; her husband in captivity. Nineteen years old, nine months pregnant, weak and exhausted from her escape across the desert, she nevertheless looked calm and spoke with a collected voice.
> 
> *“I’m not the same silly little 15-year-old schoolgirl who ran away from Bethnal Green four years ago,” she told me. “And I don’t regret coming here.”*
> 
> With those words and the act of lifting her niqab, a mystery ended. The girl sitting before me, alone in a teeming Syrian refugee camp of 39,000 people where she is registered as No 28850, was Shamima Begum, the only known survivor of the three schoolgirls from Bethnal Green Academy whose fate has been unknown at home since they fled Britain together in 2015 to join Islamic State.
> 
> Ms Begum may have reached comparative safety, yet she chastised herself for leaving the last Isis territory as Kurd forces, backed by the West, closed in.
> 
> “I was weak,” she told me of her flight from the battle in Baghuz, with something akin to remorse. “I could not endure the suffering and hardship that staying on the battlefield involved. But I was also frightened that the child I am about to give birth to would die like my other children if I stayed on. So I fled the caliphate. Now all I want to do is come home to Britain.”
> 
> Ms Begum’s escape from the tumultuous battle in eastern Syria will bring delight to her family in London — and a complex problem to the authorities owing to the uncertainties regarding the legal status of British Isis families.
> 
> She and her two fellow pupils, Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase, left their homes and families in February 2015 to join a fourth Bethnal Green schoolgirl in Syria — Sharmeena Begum, who had left London at the end of 2014 — where each married an Isis foreign fighter. Ms Sultana was reported killed two years ago.
> 
> The others, Ms Begum told me as we sat in the al-Hawl refugee camp, had made a different choice to her own, electing to stay on in the last battle at Baghuz.
> 
> “They were strong,” she said. “I respect their decision. They urged patience and endurance in the caliphate and chose to stay behind in Baghuz. They would be ashamed of me if they survived the bombing and battle to learn that I had left.”
> 
> She added: “They made their choice as single women. For their husbands were already dead. It was their own choice as women to stay.”
> 
> The decision of the London schoolgirls, who left stable family backgrounds to become part of the terrorist organisation, shocked Britain and was emblematic of the cult-like attraction that Isis held for hundreds of young jihadist brides from across Europe who flocked to Syria to serve the self-styled caliphate.
> 
> In May 2016 Ms Sultana was reported to have been killed in an airstrike on Raqqa, Islamic State’s capital. Shortly afterwards the families of the three surviving girls lost all contact with them, which had been intermittent since their arrival in Syria. At various times since, their relatives have feared that all had died in the war.
> 
> Ms Begum said the other two girls were present in the pocket of Isis territory along the Euphrates valley between the towns of Hajin and Baghuz as it shrank to next to nothing over recent weeks under the advance of the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
> 
> “I last saw my two friends in June,” she said. “But I heard from other women only two weeks ago that the two were still alive in Baghuz. But with all the recent bombing, I am not sure now whether they have survived.”
> 
> Since escaping across the frontlines around Baghuz two week ago with her Dutch husband Yago Riedijk, 27, a convert to Islam whom she married ten days after arriving in Raqqa in 2015, she has been held incommunicado in the transit section of al-Hawl camp in northern Syria. To her knowledge the British authorities are unaware of her presence there, and she asked for a message to be relayed to her sister in the UK informing her family that she was still alive.
> 
> We sat alone in a courtyard for an hour and a half where she described the fate of the girls after they arrived in Syria. Though the others adapted quickly to life in the caliphate, Ms Begum said her own experience was mixed, and spoke alternately with anger and awe of Islamic State.
> 
> After arriving in Raqqa she was put in the “house for women” where newly arrived jihadist brides-to-be waited to be married. “I applied to marry an English-speaking fighter between 20 and 25 years old,” she said. She was the first of the girls to marry, to the Dutchman from Arnhem, while Ms Sultana married an American, Ms Abase an Australian and Sharmeena Begum a Bosnian.
> 
> Soon afterwards Shamima Begum received her first reality check, when her husband was arrested and charged with spying. “They imprisoned and tortured him for six and a half months after accusing him of spying,” she said. “There was a lot of similar oppressions of innocent people. In some cases fighters who had fought for the caliphate were executed as spies even though they were innocent.”
> 
> Next, Ms Sultana was killed in an airstrike. “There was some secret stuff in the basement of Kadiza’s house,” she said, “which a spy found out about and passed on to the coalition who bombed. I never thought it would happen. At first I was in denial. I thought if ever we did get killed we’d get killed together.”
> 
> Her husband, before meeting her, had been wounded fighting in Kobani. Despite the grave charge against him, he was released from prison, but was no longer classified by Isis as a fighter. They continued to live together in Raqqa, where she described life as alternating between normality and atrocity.
> 
> *“Mostly it was a normal life in Raqqa, every now and then bombing and stuff,” she told me, using the contradictory vernacular common among indoctrinated Isis families. “But when I saw my first severed head in a bin it didn’t faze me at all. It was from a captured fighter seized on the battlefield, an enemy of Islam. I thought only of what he would have done to a Muslim woman if he had the chance.”*
> 
> *Her words remained equally harsh when describing the videos she had seen of the beheaded western hostages. “Journalists can be spies too, entering Syria illegally,” she said, mouthing Isis propaganda in the manner of an indoctrinated devotee. “They are a security threat for the caliphate.”
> *
> In January 2017 she left Raqqa with her husband to live on the outskirts of the town of Mayadin, where she was later slightly wounded in an airstrike that killed another woman and child in the house. By this time she had her first child, a daughter whom she named Sarayah. But as Isis began to suffer a string of battlefield defeats, culminating in the loss of Raqqa and Mayadin, Ms Begum’s family moved southeast along the Euphrates valley ahead of the SDF advances. By this stage both of her surviving schoolfriends were widows.
> 
> “I began to think that the caliphate might not survive after all,” she said, “though my husband urged patience and endurance, and promised me victory would follow setback.”
> 
> Yet no victory appeared. For a time the family sheltered in the town of Susah, between Hajin and Baghuz, and the SDF encirclement closed and airstrikes became a daily occurrence.
> 
> By now Ms Begum had a son, Jerah. He was the first of her children to die, three months ago aged eight months, of an unknown illness compounded by malnutrition. She took him to the Isis-run hospital in Hajin, to no avail. “There were no drugs available, and not enough medical staff,” she said. “I saw casualties wounded badly by shrapnel who came into the hospital and were told just to go home.”
> 
> As the fighting neared, the family moved on to Baghuz. In the febrile atmosphere there, she described Isis families as divided between those determined to stay on and fight, and those intent on fleeing. Now heavily pregnant, as conditions worsened her daughter Sarayah grew sick and died too. She was one year and nine months old when she was buried in Baghuz a month ago.
> 
> Though Ms Begum’s husband still urged her to be patient, grief at the loss of her two children accentuated an overwhelming desire to ensure her unborn child survived. “In the end, I just could not endure any more,” she said. “I just couldn’t take it.”
> 
> She described how Isis, in its final weeks, gave instructions to the families of all foreign fighters to make their own choices as to whether they stayed on to face the bombing and imminent attack on Baghuz or escape to the desert as best they could. Fleeing the pocket two weeks ago at dawn, she walked out of Baghuz along a three-mile long corridor east of the town, where her husband surrendered to a group of Syrian fighters allied to the SDF. That was the last time she saw him.
> 
> Taken on a coach filled with fleeing Isis families to the camp in al-Hawl, Ms Begum now waits to learn of her fate, desperate to return to Britain.
> 
> *“The caliphate is over,” she said.* “There was so much oppression and corruption that I don’t think they deserved victory. I know what everyone at home thinks of me as I have read all that was written about me online. But I just want to come home to have my child. That’s all I want right now. I’ll do anything required just to be able to come home and live quietly with my child.”



This has become a big story in the British news and there have been different reactions. I however think that this woman should not be let anywhere near back the UK if it can be helped. She is not a naive little girl who was brainwashed and has now seen what she has done or has been doing. She has zero regret or remorse for leaving the UK originally to be part of the Jihadi death cult. I might have had a different reaction if she had done due to her age and when she first joined up.

I do have sympathy for the unborn child but that shouldn't be used as an excuse for her to come back to the UK with a fresh slate. If she does have to come back, she should be trialed under terrorist charges and face our justice system. I have zero sympathy for her, none.

Brendan O'Neil absolutely nails it in his opinion piece on her: https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/02/14/this-isnt-your-home-anymore-shamia/



> To see the staggering narcissism and sense of entitlement that exists among certain sections of British youth today, look no further than the comments made by Shamima Begum. This is the young woman from London who ran away to join ISIS. Who turned her back on liberal democracy in favour of life in a 7th-century Islamic caliphate. Who rejected Britain and ran into the arms of a vicious and backward movement that despises Britain and everything it stands for. Who turned her back on her family, her community and her nation and shacked up with a fundamentalist army that has massacred British citizens, whether by slitting their throats in the Syrian desert or killing their children with homemade bombs packed with nails and screws. And yet there is Ms Begum today, on the front page of The Times, saying she wants to come ‘home’. Well, I’m sorry Shamima – this isn’t your home anymore.
> 
> Her interview is like a distillation of all the worst traits of the identitarian sections of youthful society. There’s her blissful, haughty rejection of the idea that one’s choices and one’s behaviour might have consequences, as if you can go on a three-year jaunt in which you provide moral and wifely succour to a barbarian, anti-British movement and then come home again and avail of British society’s welfare and protections. Begum says she just wants to ‘come home and live quietly with my child’ (she is reportedly nine months pregnant) and she says she’s confident her and her child will be ‘taken care of’. There’s the casual, implicitly arrogant assumption that it is absolutely fine that she holds values that run directly, violently counter to British values. She says she has no regrets about joining ISIS and that the sight of severed human heads in dustbins ‘didn’t faze me at all’, seemingly unmoved by the fact that the vast majority of Britons will find such views morally and dangerously repellent.
> 
> And there’s the obsession with the self. All that Begum seems to talk about in her chat with The Times is herself and her friends and her child and her future. ‘Bring ME home’, the headline reads. What about the people killed by the army she ran away to? What about the citizens massacred by people like her husband, a Dutch jihadi? What about Alan Henning, the kindly British taxi driver beheaded by one of Begum’s fellow Brits who became an enemy combatant for ISIS (Jihadi John)? What about the eight-year-old girl murdered at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in the name of the religious cult Begum willingly joined? Nothing about them. Nada. In Begum’s enclosed, self-reflecting, morally warped universe, these people seem not to matter. Apparently she is the victim, not them. ‘Help me’, says this young woman who willingly joined a movement which happily ran a knife across the throats of any of its captives who likewise uttered those words, ‘Help me’. There isn’t a violin small enough to capture how most Britons will feel about Begum’s complaints.
> 
> Begum infamously left London with two of her friends in 2015. She was 15 years old at the time. One of her friends was also 15, the other 16. It is thought that one of them was killed by Russian bombing. Begum is now in a refugee camp in northern Syria and, in a brilliant journalistic scoop, The Times found her, photographed her, talked to her, and created today’s dramatic front page. Begum married a Dutch jihadi. She knew well that she would marry an ISIS fighter – that is precisely what she and her friends went to ISIS-ruled territory to do. She now tells The Times that she has no regrets about moving to ISIS’s brutal caliphate and was fine with seeing severed heads. Those heads belonged to ‘enem[ies] of Islam’ and therefore they didn’t ‘faze’ her, she chillingly says. As if those who dissent from Islamist doctrine deserve beheading. And then she says ‘bring me home’. The cognitive dissonance is extraordinary, bordering on pathological. Paraphrased: ‘I am okay with seeing the mutilated bodies of people who criticise Islam – now let me back into London.’
> 
> This cognitive dissonance – this simultaneous boasting about being unfazed by the severing of kafirs’ heads and pleading to be allowed back into Britain for a ‘quiet life’ – is actually very revealing. It speaks to what happens when people are brought up in a society as segmented and morally fractured as Britain currently is. That Begum thinks it perfectly natural that she can express no regret about siding with ISIS and call on Britain to bring her home and care for her tells us much about life under the ideology of multiculturalism. Modern Britain is a nation that refuses to state clearly what its values are, and which in fact celebrates being ‘multi-values’. All value systems are fine and none is superior to any other – that is the rallying cry of the multicultural era.
> 
> As a consequence, Britain has become divided, disjointed, split into various, often conflicting communities and value systems. Many of the people brought up in this climate come to feel dislocated from any idea of Britishness, and from the British nation itself, and some start to embrace narrow, eccentric and even quite hostile value systems. And if you criticise this process? You’re an Islamophobe. This is the double-whammy illiberalism of the ideology of multiculturalism: it divides communities and then it clamps down on open, frank discussion about such worrying and sometimes dangerous division.
> 
> Indeed, the story of these three London girls who ran off in 2015 was always a very telling one. It contains lessons, if only we are willing to see them. Too many observers have focused on the girls’ youthfulness and the idea that they were ‘groomed’ or ‘brainwashed’ by online jihadists. Note how ‘radicalisation’ has become an entirely passive phrase – these girls, and other Brits, were ‘radicalised’, we are always told, as if they are unwitting dupes who were mentally poisoned by sinister internet-users in Mosul or Raqqa. In truth, the three girls were resourceful and bright. All were grade-A students.
> 
> They thought their actions through, they planned them meticulously, and they executed them well. Far from being the passive victims of online radicalisation, the girls themselves sought to convince other young women to run away to ISIS territory. The focus on the ‘grooming’ of Western European youths by evil ISIS masterminds overlooks a more terrible reality: that some Western European youths, Muslim ones, actively sought out the ISIS life. And this tells us much about the growth of division, nihilism and anti-Westernism among youths in 21st-century Europe.
> 
> Britain should not go out of its way to bring Ms Begum home. She made her choices and she must live with the consequences. Of course, if she makes it back to the UK of her own volition, we should let her enter, and she should be dealt with either as an enemy combatant or as the ally of enemy combatants, depending on what her precise role was. She should be processed as such, subjected to investigation, and, if necessary, punishment. You cannot implicitly declare war on your own nation and then waltz back into that nation as you please. You cannot side with mass murderers and then live a quiet life. You cannot throw your lot in with the movement behind the massacre of Kurds and Iraqis and Parisians and Mancunians and just go back to your old London existence. That isn’t how life works. And the sooner Ms Begum and every other British backer of ISIS realise this, the better.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Legally no, morally it's reprehensible. I'd want it made an impossibility through taxation.


Talk about being utterly irrational and petty.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Legally no, morally it's reprehensible. I'd want it made an impossibility through taxation.





Berzerker's Beard said:


> so if i invented or created something that everyone in the world found useful, and I charged $1 a pop, and 100 million people decided to voluntarily purchase one from me... it would 'morally reprehensible' of me to have 100 million dollars?
> 
> you'll have to explain what you mean.





Berzerker's Beard said:


> this fuckin guy :lol
> 
> uh... people become rich through consumerism. steve jobs became a billionaire because he started a company that created and invented things people bought from him. if you bought an iPhone, YOU are responsible for making him a billionaire.





Kabraxal said:


> Talk about being utterly irrational and petty.


Would you imagine Steve Jobs would have even had the motivation to invent the iPhone if these kinds of taxes actually existed prior to 2007?


----------



## Draykorinee

Sylar said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally no, morally it's reprehensible. I'd want it made an impossibility through taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> so if i invented or created something that everyone in the world found useful, and I charged $1 a pop, and 100 million people decided to voluntarily purchase one from me... it would 'morally reprehensible' of me to have 100 million dollars?
> 
> you'll have to explain what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> this fuckin guy <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> uh... people become rich through consumerism. steve jobs became a billionaire because he started a company that created and invented things people bought from him. if you bought an iPhone, YOU are responsible for making him a billionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kabraxal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about being utterly irrational and petty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you imagine Steve Jobs would have even had the motivation to invent the iPhone if these kinds of taxes actually existed prior to 2007?
Click to expand...

Yes.



Kabraxal said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally no, morally it's reprehensible. I'd want it made an impossibility through taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about being utterly irrational and petty.
Click to expand...

Nothing petty or irrational about preventing multibillionaires. You'll need adjectives that make sense. 

Imagine telling FDR that his tax rate was irrational lol.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Yes.


Companies don't spent time and money producing products they can't make max profit from.

They're especially not going to bother inventing something new that takes even longer to go through all the patients, testing and you name it that came with producing new technology when they're not allowed to reap the benefits of doing so.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sylar said:


> Would you imagine Steve Jobs would have even had the motivation to invent the iPhone if these kinds of taxes actually existed prior to 2007?





Sylar said:


> Companies don't spent time and money producing products they can't make max profit from.
> 
> They're especially not going to bother inventing something new that takes even longer to go through all the patients, testing and you name it that came with producing new technology when they're not allowed to reap the benefits of doing so.





You do know when the US had a 70-90% marginal tax rate the US experienced its best economic growth in history right.

So why wouldnt we want that again.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You do know when the US had a 70-90% marginal tax rate the US experienced its best economic growth in history right.


He's not talking about a marginal tax rate. He said he'd want a tax that would make it impossible to be "ultra rich." There's no way to stop Apple from amassing insane wealth after the invention of the iPhone unless the taxes on it were stupid crazy.


----------



## Draykorinee

Sylar said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Companies don't spent time and money producing products they can't make max profit from.
> 
> They're especially not going to bother inventing something new that takes even longer to go through all the patients, testing and you name it that came with producing new technology when they're not allowed to reap the benefits of doing so.
Click to expand...

Why are you conflating personal taxation with company taxation? 
At no point have I suggested companies shouldn't make lots of money, I'm not a post capitalist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sylar said:


> He's not talking about a marginal tax rate. He said he'd want a tax that would make it impossible to be "ultra rich." There's no way to stop Apple from amassing insane wealth after the invention of the iPhone unless the taxes on it were stupid crazy.


Marginal tax rate would prevent someone from being able to become ultra rich.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Marginal tax rate would prevent someone from being able ultra rich.


I'd like to see your statistics to show me there were no rich people in this country whatsoever when the high marginal tax rates were in effect.

Even if you're legit, I still stand by what I said. Apple would not bother inventing the iPhone if they couldn't make max profit on it. They just wouldn't.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The marginal tax rates that no one paid 

Effective marginal tax rate on highest incomes was 17%-42% when the official marginal tax rate on highest incomes was 70%-90%. The tax code was rife with deductions and loopholes and constructed tax havens that were fully taken advantage of by those with the highest incomes to ensure that they never paid even half their official marginal tax rate 

The :fact that people simply ignore this to keep repeating false assertions is standard

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sylar said:


> I'd like to see your statistics to show me there were no rich people in this country whatsoever when the high marginal tax rates were in effect.
> 
> Even if you're legit, I still stand by what I said. Apple would not bother inventing the iPhone if they couldn't make max profit on it. They just wouldn't.


Ultra rich and rich are two different things. Why are you moving goalposts?


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ultra rich and rich are two different things. Why are you moving goalposts?


Ultra rich isn't a legit metric. I don't know what he meant by that specifically, but I assume he means by ultra rich, the kind of money Apple makes.

So if the rates are too high for them to make several billion a quarter, they're not bothering. This company gets flustered when sales dip like 8%. Never mind insane taxes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> Ultra rich isn't a legit metric. I don't know what he meant by that specifically, but I assume he means by ultra rich, the kind of money Apple makes.
> 
> So if the rates are too high for them to make several billion a quarter, they're not bothering. This company gets flustered when sales dip like 8%. Never mind insane taxes.


Do you even listen to yourself?

So using your logic, if someone can't make 5 billion in a quarter, because of taxes and instead can only make 2 billion or even 999 million, you think they would rather not bother and make zero instead of 2 billion or 999 million

do you even listen to how ridiculous that sounds?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

We have actual historical examples of 90%+ personal and business income/profit tax rates with no ability to lower the effective rate through deductions, havens, re-classification of income/profit loopholes etc.

In the Soviet Union post-NEP and in the early years of Maoist China

These taxes were intended to put shopkeepers, private artisans and service professionals, local and regional traders, more well-off farmers (the famed kulaks) and private industry in general out of business, leaving state enterprises the only ones that could function to any degree, and that's exactly what they did. It was a way to end private businesses without simply having the State appropriate them. Of course after a few years of trying that the commies decided to go on full-on State takeover


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Do you even listen to yourself?
> 
> So using your logic, if someone can't make 5 billion in a quarter, because of taxes and instead can only make 2 billion or even 999 million, you think they would rather not bother and make zero instead of billion or 999 million
> 
> do you even listen to how ridiculous that sounds?


They'd continue selling their macs and whatever else they already were, but no there'd be no incentive to invent something new if it would be taxed heavily. That said, I'm gonna pivot here because...

I don't think you listen to _yourself_. I said originally I didn't think he was talking about marginal tax rates because 2 billion still sounds ultra rich to me.

So we're not even really in disagreement so we can end this here. BTW look at that link Deep posted since it covers what the marginal tax rates actually were in the 1950s.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> They'd continue selling their macs and whatever else they already were, but no there'd be no incentive to invent something new if it would be taxed heavily. That said, I'm gonna pivot here because...
> 
> I don't think you listen to _yourself_. I said originally I didn't think he was talking about marginal tax rates because 2 billion still sounds ultra rich to me.
> 
> So we're not even really in disagreement so we can end this here. BTW look at that link Deep posted since it covers what the marginal tax rates actually were in the 1950s.



What your saying is just not true. Show examples of this being true when taxes were higher. Show examples of your claim companies won't bother making products if they are taxed more.

As for 2 billion still being ultra-rich. You keep combining companies and personal income. 

I also said 999 million in case you would claim well 2 billion is still a lot.

So AGAIN you really think a company would rather make ZERO than 999 million?


I don't see deeps posts because he is a troll. I have him on ignore.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What your saying is just not true. Show examples of this being true when taxes were higher. Show examples of your claim companies won't bother making products if they are taxed more.
> 
> As for 2 billion still being ultra-rich. You keep combining companies and personal income.
> 
> I also said 999 million in case you would claim well 2 billion is still a lot.
> 
> So AGAIN you really think a company would rather make ZERO than 999 million?
> 
> 
> I don't see deeps posts because he is a troll. I have him on ignore.


You can't separate the two. People own and run companies to make money. If you own or run Apple, you're gonna be ultra rich.

You can't change the number because I consider 2 billion a lot. It is a lot. The fact is even with marginal tax rates a company like Apple would still become ultra rich and most of the higher ups would still too.

Why did you repeat the zero bit again? I already said Apple would most likely continue operations doing whatever they were doing before 2007, but no, if you increased the taxes to the point they couldn't make legit money off a new product, they wouldn't bother.

You don't seem to get business. Apple and Samsung cancel product lines when sales dip 8%. That's a hell of lot less money they losing here in real life, than if they were hypothetically taxed into the ground.

But like we both agreed to, 1-2 billion a quarter still makes Apple a ton of money.

As for the link I'll provide it here:


deepelemblues said:


> The marginal tax rates that no one paid
> 
> Effective marginal tax rate on highest incomes was 17%-42% when the official marginal tax rate on highest incomes was 70%-90%. The tax code was rife with deductions and loopholes and constructed tax havens that were fully taken advantage of by those with the highest incomes to ensure that they never paid even half their official marginal tax rate
> 
> The :fact that people simply ignore this to keep repeating false assertions is standard
> 
> https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/


https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

The marginal tax rates were not that high during the booming economy and I don't foresee that happening any time in the near future either.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> You can't separate the two. People own and run companies to make money. If you own or run Apple, you're gonna be ultra rich.
> 
> You can't change the number because I consider 2 billion a lot. It is a lot. The fact is even with marginal tax rates a company like Apple would still become ultra rich and most of the higher ups would still too.
> 
> Why did you repeat the zero bit again? I already said Apple would most likely continue operations doing whatever they were doing before 2007, but no, if you increased the taxes to the point they couldn't make legit money off a new product, they wouldn't bother.
> 
> You don't seem to get business. Apple and Samsung cancel product lines when sales dip 8%. That's a hell of lot less money they losing here in real life, than if they were hypothetically taxed into the ground.
> 
> But like we both agreed to, 1-2 billion a quarter still makes Apple a ton of money.
> 
> As for the link I'll provide it here:
> 
> https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
> 
> The marginal tax rates were not that high during the booming economy and I don't foresee that happening any time in the near future either.


You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Yes, you can separate the two. You used apple for example. Apples revenue was not the same as Steve Jobs income.

Apple and Steve Jobs did not have the same net worth. 

You are the one who does not get business. You think a company would rather make zero than 999 million. 

AGAIN show me an example of a company that didn't bother to make products because of taxes. 

Yes Apple and Samsung cancel product lines when those products don't sell or because that tech became obsolete, they don't cancel product lines that sell well because they get taxed.

Why are you confusing a product selling less with them getting taxed.

You just keep proving you don't understand business


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Yes, you can separate the two. You used apple for example. Apples revenue was not the same as Steve Jobs income.
> 
> Apple and Steve Jobs did not have the same net worth.
> 
> You are the one who does not get business. You think a company would rather make zero than 999 million.
> 
> AGAIN show me an example of a company that didn't bother to make products because of taxes.
> 
> Yes Apple and Samsung cancel product lines when those products don't sell or because that tech became obsolete, they don't cancel product lines that sell well because they get taxed.
> 
> Why are you confusing a product selling less with them getting taxed.
> 
> You just keep proving you don't understand business


:confused

I never said they were the same... but if Apple still makes 2 billion a quarter, Steve Jobs is still going to be a billionaire. Like what don't you get here?

How are you still asking the zero question when I've repeatedly answered it? You know Apple existed before the iPhone, right? They'd still make whatever they made in 2006 selling their macs. They just wouldn't invent a new technology they wouldn't make a profit on (and this is with a higher tax than you are proposing. They'd still do it in the 2 billion scenario.).

How would I provide you that when we not even talking about the same things anymore? You're talking about marginal tax rates, he's talking about a tax that goes way beyond that. There are no examples of a tax that prevented a company and their executives from becoming ultra rich. But if they existed, I have a hard time believing you think people would bother inventing something they wouldn't make money from.

A product not selling and being taxed so heavily the company lost more money than it did not selling looks the same when your product is in the red because of the loss of revenue.

The fact I know business are in business to make money and you don't shows I do in fact know business. No one dreams of going to countries with high tax rates to start new business. It was called the American Dream for a reason. Click on that link deep posted and we'll call it a day since you thought we were talking about marginal tax rates and you were wrong from jump street anyway so I'm not even sure what we're doing anymore.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> :confused
> 
> I never said they were the same... but if Apple still makes 2 billion a quarter, Steve Jobs is still going to be a billionaire. Like what don't you get here?
> 
> How are you still asking the zero question when I've repeatedly answered it? You know Apple existed before the iPhone, right? They'd still make whatever they made in 2006 selling their macs. They just wouldn't invent a new technology they wouldn't make a profit on (and this is with a higher tax than you are proposing. They'd still do it in the 2 billion scenario.).
> 
> How would I provide you that when we not even talking about the same things anymore? You're talking about marginal tax rates, he's talking about a tax that goes way beyond that. There are no examples of a tax that prevented a company and their executives from becoming ultra rich. *But if they existed, I have a hard time believing you think people would bother inventing something they wouldn't make money from.*
> 
> *A product not selling and being taxed so heavily the company lost more money than it did not selling looks the same when your product is in the red because of the loss of revenue.*
> 
> The fact I know business are in business to make money and you don't shows I do in fact know business. No one dreams of going to countries with high tax rates to start new business. It was called the American Dream for a reason. Click on that link deep posted and we'll call it a day since you thought we were talking about marginal tax rates and you were wrong from jump street anyway so I'm not even sure what we're doing anymore.


You did not answer the question asked, you made up your own question and answered that. 
You are just moving goalposts because you can't defend your position, Just admit you were wrong and move on

This is what you said first


Sylar said:


> Ultra rich isn't a legit metric. I don't know what he meant by that specifically, but I assume he means by ultra rich, the kind of money Apple makes.
> 
> So if the rates are too high for them to make several billion a quarter, they're not bothering. This company gets flustered when sales dip like 8%. Never mind insane taxes.


Now you are saying (see bolded)

A company that is making 2 billion for a product then is taxed higher and instead makes 999 million, isn't going to stop making it because they are not making 2 billion anymore.

That is what you are claiming and it's wrong of course they will keep making it. You are acting like if a company does not make billions and instead 999 million it's not worth making anymore. There is no amount of taxes you can put on a product that makes billions to make them have a loss. It's crazy you would even make this claim

There is no amount of taxes that would make a product go from making billions to taking a loss. It's a joke you are even trying to claim this. 

Since you can't even be reasonable on this, this is my last post on this toward you. Because again you don't know what you are talking about and I am just wasting my time at this point. 

I was not wrong about marginal tax rates. those were the marginal tax rates in those years. Just because a lot of companies found loopholes like they do now, does not mean that wasn't the marginal tax rate back then.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You did not answer the question asked, you made up your own question and answered that.
> You are just moving goalposts because you can't defend your position, Just admit you were wrong and move on
> 
> This is what you said first
> 
> 
> Now you are saying (see bolded)
> 
> A company that is making 2 billion for a product then is taxed higher and instead makes 999 million, isn't going to stop making it because they are not making 2 billion anymore.
> 
> That is what you are claiming and it's wrong of course they will keep making it. You are acting like if a company does not make billions and instead 999 million it's not worth making anymore. There is no amount of taxes you can put on a product that makes billions to make them have a loss. It's crazy you would even make this claim
> 
> There is no amount of taxes that would make a product go from making billions to taking a loss. It's a joke you are even trying to claim this.
> 
> Since you can't even be reasonable on this, this is my last post on this toward you. Because again you don't know what you are talking about and I am just wasting my time at this point.
> 
> I was not wrong about marginal tax rates. those were the marginal tax rates in those years. Just because a lot of companies found loopholes like they do now, does not mean that wasn't the marginal tax rate back then.


That's not what I claimed. That's also not what I first said. This all started because I said Apple wouldn't invent the iPhone if there was a tax that made it impossible for them to become ultra rich (your 999 million a quarter scenario is still ultra rich).

I don't think you understand what were even discussing anymore. First of all the original number you provided was 5 billion and then you said the new number after taxes was 2 billion. Even if went with your new 1 billion mark, no need to say 999 million, that's still nearly 4 billion a year. That's still ultra rich. Steve Jobs would eventually still become a billionaire. In this scenario, with the numbers you provided Apple would absolutely still make the phone. We were always in agreement about that which is why I said why are we still arguing this. His original post wasn't going to allow for these kinds of numbers. I wasn't disputing you, I was disputing him. He was the one who said it would be impossible to be ultra rich, so yes, under his idea they would taxed so heavily they would no longer make anywhere near those billions you referred to.

The irony of you saying I don't know what I'm talking about when you literally have zero idea what we've been talking about this entire time. Not only were you fighting an argument we never had, but you consistently asked me questions I already answered. But yes, we can be done here.

If they were finding loopholes, they all found loopholes. A company like Apple wasn't gonna ever pay a 90% marginal tax rate. Anyways, have a nice night.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> That's not what I claimed. That's also not what I first said. This all started because I said Apple wouldn't invent the iPhone if there was a tax that made it impossible for them to become ultra rich (your 999 million a quarter scenario is still ultra rich).
> 
> I don't think you understand what were even discussing anymore. First of all the original number you provided was 5 billion and then you said the new number after taxes was 2 billion. Even if went with your new 1 billion mark, no need to say 999 million, that's still nearly 4 billion a year. That's still ultra rich. Steve Jobs would eventually still become a billionaire. In this scenario, with the numbers you provided Apple would absolutely still make the phone. We were always in agreement about that which is why I said why are we still arguing this. His original post wasn't going to allow for these kinds of numbers. I wasn't disputing you, I was disputing him. He was the one who said it would be impossible to be ultra rich, so yes, under his idea they would taxed so heavily they would no longer make anywhere near those billions you referred to.
> 
> The irony of you saying I don't know what I'm talking about when you literally have zero idea what we've been talking about this entire time. Not only were you fighting an argument we never had, but you consistently asked me questions I already answered. But yes, we can be done here.
> 
> If they were finding loopholes, they all found loopholes. A company like Apple wasn't gonna ever pay a 90% marginal tax rate. Anyways, have a nice night.


You were erroneously disputing if Steve Jobs couldn't become a billionaire would apple still make iphones. You conflated two separate things, I did not and would not suggest that companies shouldn't make big profits, however in my ideal world which doesn't exist due to personal greed from people like Jobs, those profits would go to the workers as much as they went to the shareholders.

The term Ultra rich was used by someone else first, I don't really have a figure for ultra rich its not my term. But your insinuation seems to be that if people can't become ultra rich, they will throw away any prospect of just being rich and the companies they work for would cease bothering.


----------



## Deathstroke

Draykorinee said:


> You were erroneously disputing if Steve Jobs couldn't become a billionaire would apple still make iphones. You conflated two separate things, I did not and would not suggest that companies shouldn't make big profits, however in my ideal world which doesn't exist due to personal greed from people like Jobs, those profits would go to the workers as much as they went to the shareholders.
> 
> The term Ultra rich was used by someone else first, I don't really have a figure for ultra rich its not my term. But your insinuation seems to be that if people become ultra rich, they will throw away any prospect of just being just rich.


Why would Steve Jobs want to invent something and then share the profits with people who did not invent said thing?

They're not separate things. If you own and/or run said company you have both a salary and most likely a share in profits. Changing how businesses work goes beyond taxes that stop people from becoming ultra rich.

I didn't specifically say billionaire, I went with your ultra rich term. But in most scenarios where Apple is still allowed a profit, of course Jobs becomes a billionaire.

It depends on how rich you're talking? People who dream of inventing thing don't dream of only being allowed to have a small fraction of the money made off your invention.

Just for reference I went with BM's numbers for the sake of the discussion, but they are way off... (by like a factor times 20)



> Apple is providing the following guidance for its fiscal 2019 first quarter:
> revenue between $89 billion and $93 billion
> gross margin between 38 percent and 38.5 percent
> operating expenses between $8.7 billion and $8.8 billion
> other income/(expense) of $300 million
> tax rate of approximately 16.5 percent before discrete items
> https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/11/apple-reports-fourth-quarter-results/


Even with a high tax rate, they making some bank no matter what.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> Why would Steve Jobs want to invent something and then share the profits with people who did not invent said thing?
> 
> They're not separate things. If you own and/or run said company you have both a salary and most likely a share in profits. Changing how businesses work goes beyond taxes that stop people from becoming ultra rich.
> 
> I didn't specifically say billionaire, I went with your ultra rich term. But in most scenarios where Apple is still allowed a profit, of course Jobs becomes a billionaire.
> 
> It depends on how rich you're talking? People who dream of inventing thing don't dream of only being allowed to have a small fraction of the money made off your invention.


Again, not my term. I've used it once about 2 pages after it was first used, and only then to say I didn't use the term.

Why would Steve Jobs want to invent something that makes him a multi millionaire and helps pay tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of people a decent wage.

I dunno, I guess being damn rich might be the first part, secondly maybe he's philanthropic (Although we all know he's just a very greedy person), thirdly maybe he wants to grow his company so it can continue to grow so he always maintains his rich status?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sylar said:


> Just for reference I went with BM's numbers for the sake of the discussion, but they are way off... (by like a factor times 20)
> 
> 
> Even with a high tax rate, they making some bank no matter what.


 You’re making my point for me Lol. No matter how much they are taxed they are still going to make money. You Kept saying they would lose money and not want to invent if they were taxed more


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You’re making my point for me Lol. No matter how much they are taxed they are still going to make money. You Kept saying they would lose money and not want to invent if they were taxed more












TBF my make it impossible to be ultra rich is a fantasy because these people would just dodge taxes anyway and still become ultra rich.


----------



## Deathstroke

birthday_massacre said:


> You’re making my point for me Lol. No matter how much they are taxed they are still going to make money. You Kept saying they would lose money and not want to invent


You still don't understand the conversation.

If we go with your numbers and now the actual numbers with a marginal tax rate, Apple makes a profit and nothing changes. I told you from your very first response we weren't talking about a marginal tax rate.

I was saying under Dray's proposal they have to be taxed so heavily it's impossible for them to become ultra rich, they don't make any of that money.



Draykorinee said:


> TBF my make it impossible to be ultra rich is a fantasy because these people would just dodge taxes anyway and still become ultra rich.


Of course they would. That's what businesses do. :westbrook7


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> TBF my make it impossible to be ultra rich is a fantasy because these people would just dodge taxes anyway and still become ultra rich.


That is why you close the loop holes.




Sylar said:


> You still don't understand the conversation.
> 
> If we go with your numbers and now the actual numbers with a marginal tax rate, Apple makes a profit and nothing changes. I told you from your very first response we weren't talking about a marginal tax rate.
> 
> I was saying under Dray's proposal they have to be taxed so heavily it's impossible for them to become ultra rich, they don't make any of that money.



Why wouldn't apple still make that money under Drays proposal? You are still going with they would rather make zero then hundreds of millions instead of a billion argument. What you are saying wouldn't happen.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why wouldn't apple still make that money? You are still going with they would rather make zero then hundreds of millions instead of a billion argument.


No, I'm not. I literally never made that argument. Like ever and I've repeated that many times. Even without the iPhone *THEY STILL SELL MACS*.

You need to go back and find the first post Dray made and then the post I made to him.

His proposal is a tax that is so insanely high no one connected to Apple could ever become ultra rich. That goes beyond any tax rate you've proposed or would be remotely feasible.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> No, I'm not. I literally never made that argument. Like ever and I've repeated that many times. Even without the iPhone *THEY STILL SELL MACS*.
> 
> You need to go back and find the first post Dray made and then the post I made to him.
> 
> His proposal is a tax that is so insanely high no one connected to Apple could ever become ultra rich. That goes beyond any tax rate you've proposed or would be remotely feasible.


Did you not say, if they were going to be taxed more why would they even bother to invent anything at all? That would include new macs and iPhones.

This is your exact quote "But if they existed, I have a hard time believing you think people would bother inventing something they wouldn't make money from."

If Apple stopped making new macs and never phones they would have gone under.

So what you are saying is not making any sense

What exactly do you mean by that quote.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Did you not say, if they were going to be taxed more why would they even bother to invent anything at all? That would include new macs and iPhones.
> 
> If Apple stopped making new macs and never phones they would have gone under.
> 
> So what you are saying is not making any sense


Mac were invented ages ago. I'm not talking about stopping production on existing technologies.

Then they would go under. No one spends the time and money that would go into creating a new technology like that and then gives 99% of the profit to the Government.

I didn't say it. For some reason you're not following along. Dray is the one who said he'd literally make impossible for anyone to become ultra rich with a tax. People create business and invent new technologies to become ultra rich. That is literally the dream.

I originally phrased the would he be motived as a question. It wasn't even a statement, but I stand by the idea that a tax that makes it impossible to become ultra rich would impede many people's motivations to bother with business.

Whether that be Steve Jobs or anyone else.

We'll just have to agree to disagree since I assume you're both staunch believers of redistribution (I think you're a Marxist or a socialist of some kind - I could be wrong though) and I'm vehemently opposed to such ideas.

We can just agree to disagree here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> Mac were invented ages ago. I'm not talking about stopping production on existing technologies.
> 
> Then they would go under. No one spends the time and money that would go into creating a new technology like that and then gives 99% of the profit to the Government.
> 
> I didn't say it. For some reason you're not following along. Dray is the one who said he'd literally make impossible for anyone to become ultra rich with a tax. People create business and invent new technologies to become ultra rich. That is literally the dream.
> 
> I originally phrased the would he be motived as a question. It wasn't even a statement, but I stand by the idea that a tax that makes it impossible to become ultra rich would impede many people's motivations to bother with business.
> 
> Whether that be Steve Jobs or anyone else.
> 
> We'll just have to agree to disagree since I assume you're both staunch believers of redistribution (you say you're not a communists but I think you're a Marxist or a socialist of some kind - I could be wrong though) and I'm vehemently opposed to such ideas.
> 
> We can just agree to disagree here.


you do understand the macs that were around in the 80s and 90s are totally different than they are now right?

apple keeps reinventing the mac. The same goes for the iPhone. The first iPhone is totally different than the one we have now. Same goes for the ipod.

You keep claiming people won't invent something if it wouldn't make them ultra-rich, which means, they would rather not invent anything and make ZERO money than invent something and become just rich. 

As for redistribution, yes I do believe in that. 

Take Wal Mart for example. The Waltons are the richest family in the USA. 

Wal Mart makes about 15 BILLION in PROFIT each year. Close to 500 BILLION in the total revenue. 

You don't think the employees working at Wal Mart should get a decent salary since their company makes over 15 billion in profit each year?

Wal Mart could easily pay their employees 15 an hour but a lot of them are paid too little and need food stamps to survive. 

You really think that is ok for a company making 15 billion in profit


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

The invention of the iPhone was groundbreaking. Apple created an entirely new piece of technology that was completely different than anything that came before it.

Making some hardware upgrades and making the OS better on the macs isn't the same equivalent. (Also, iPhone barely changed for 10 years. The first real leap forward was the X and that's not the same thing as debuting a brand new technology.)

Most business make money selling things that already exist. You don't need to invent something to make money. And to not become ultra rich, the taxes placed on that company would have to be so ming-boggling high, I don't think you can comprehend it.

A businessman would not want to work that hard to had over the vast majority of his profit. I don't even like the idea of the marginal tax rates you proposed, but at least those are more reasonable. Under those, Apple would still make advances in technology.

I think the Waltons deserve as much money as their consumers are willing to give them and the employees should get whatever they agreed to work for when they were hired. No one is entitled to someone else's money.

It's funny Walmart is still the example people go to despite they pay consistently higher than almost anyone else. I believe the base starting pay right now is like $12 coming in th door.

No one working retail and fast food will make $15 at entry level. It's just not going to happen.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> The invention of the iPhone was groundbreaking. Apple created an entirely new piece of technology that was completely different than anything that came before it.
> 
> Making some hardware upgrades and making the OS better on the macs isn't the same equivalent. (Also, iPhone barely changed for 10 years. The first real leap forward was the X and that's not the same thing as debuting a brand new technology.)
> 
> Most business make money selling things that already exist. You don't need to invent something to make money. And to not become ultra rich, the taxes placed on that company would have to be so ming-boggling high, I don't think you can comprehend it.
> 
> A businessman would not want to work that hard to had over the vast majority of his profit. I don't even like the idea of the marginal tax rates you proposed, but at least those are more reasonable. Under those, Apple would still make advances in technology.
> 
> I think the Waltons deserve as much money as their consumers are willing to give them and the employees should get whatever they agreed to work for when they were hired. No one is entitled to someone else's money.
> 
> It's funny Walmart is still the example people go to despite they pay consistently higher than almost anyone else. I believe the base starting pay right now is like $12 coming in th door.
> 
> No one working retail and fast food will make $15 at entry level. It's just not going to happen.


Upgrades are still inventions. If Apple didn't change anything from the first iPhone or the first mac, again they would have gone out fo business. You need to keep up with technology to make money. 

You do know what a marginal tax rate is right? 

As for not being entitled to someone else's money, in the Wal Mart example, you do know that Wal Mart would make no money if all the front line workers, like all the cashiers, sales associates, the people who work in the warehouses etc all up and quit. those are the people who help run wal mart and they don't even make a living wage. Like I said a huge number of them need to rely on food stamps to survive and some even need to take a second job. Also their full time is just 34 hours, so full-time workers get 19k a year which puts them under the poverty line for a family of three. 

A company making 15 billion in profit, should be paying their works at least 15 bucks an hour since they are one of the main reasons Wal Mart is raking in all that money. Because without them, Wal Mart would come to a screeching halt.

Wal Mart just start paying 11 bucks an hour last year, and that still is way too long for what the company makes.

Instead of giving their employees 15 an hour they gave their stockholders over 20 billion in buybacks

But I guess you are ok with that right

They could take half of that 20 billion and give that 10 billion to make their starting rate 15 an hour. But noooo let them give it to the millionaire stockholders instead


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

BM you have yet to provide a valid reason why there shouldn't be billionaires. 

guess what there are people around the globe that have nothing. there are people that live in tents and don't have access to running water. the average american that has their own house, their own car, their own food and their own indoor plumbing would be considered "ultra rich" in comparison.

you once claimed you make around 40k a year. that could feed A LOT of people. give me one reason why we shouldn't tax YOU at 70-90% so that less fortunate people could have access to the same things that you do?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> BM you have yet to provide a valid reason why there shouldn't be billionaires.
> 
> guess what there are people around the globe that have nothing. there are people that live in tents and don't have access to running water. the average american that has their own house, their own car, their own food and their own indoor plumbing would be considered "ultra rich" in comparison.
> 
> you once claimed you make around 40k a year. that could feed A LOT of people. give me one reason why we shouldn't tax YOU at 70-90% so that less fortunate people could have access to the same things that you do?


If you think billionaires own their wealth, you haven't understood how capital works in a capitalist economy. What you're doing is draw a parallel between feudal ownership and capital ownership which is a very over-simplified way of looking at it. 

Billionnaires do not _own _their wealth since almost all of it is venture capital, loans and a mix of financial instruments which is shared ownership between other capitalists and millions of people. They are renters of this "wealth" and have found a way to give people convincing arguments of why they're not renters, but rather owners and sheep do their arguing on their behalf. 

It's funny how banks have convinced you that there is actually such a thing as private ownership of equity.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/b...-than-they-make-2019-02-07?mod=hp_minor_pos19

http://www.populareconomics.org/are-billionaires-fat-cats-or-deserving-entrepreneurs/

How investment banking gives the illusion of ownership of capital:

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...2215/what-do-investment-bankers-really-do.asp

(The mass collection of funds that are stored in banks - includes desposits by millions of people and their monthly/weekly earnings and savings all get pooled up when a "capitalist" comes to a bank for a loan and that money is pooled by the bigger banks to be lent to the capitalist so the capitalist can use that rented money to generate wealth. But the thing is that this money is not their ownership, so even if a capitalist "generates" wealth after 3-5 years during which time it's not profitable, the "wealth generation" is essentially that money being cycled back between every that the capitalist engages). 

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...2215/what-do-investment-bankers-really-do.asp

In the most simplest terms, essentially, your paycheck and what you earn is being used by a bank as a part of a giant pool rented out to a capitalist who until he is profitable is using your paycheck to pay someone else in a giant circle jerk of money circulation. 

Where is the ownership in all of this? Care to explain?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> If you think billionaires own their wealth, you haven't understood how capital works in a capitalist economy.What you're doing is draw a parallel between feudal ownership and capital ownership which is a very over-simplified way of looking at it.
> 
> Billionnaires do not _own _their wealth since almost all of it is venture capital, loans and a mix of financial instruments which is shared ownership between other capitalists and millions of people. They are renters of this "wealth" and have found a way to give people convincing arguments of why they're not renters, but rather owners and sheep do their arguing on their behalf.
> 
> It's funny how banks have convinced you that there is actually such a thing as private ownership of equity.


oh look reaper is pulling shit out of his ass again and changing the subject for NO REASON so he could show everyone how smart and anti-capitalist he is.

you sure owned me by responding to a point that no one was making in the first place :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> oh look reaper is pulling shit out of his ass again and changing the subject for NO REASON so he could show everyone how smart and anti-capitalist he is.
> 
> you sure owned me by responding to a point that no one was making in the first place :lol


If you question the idea of ownership, then that negates the idea that billionnaires actually even exist. It counters the flawed perception that billionnaires both a) own their wealth and b) have a right to maintain ownership of wealth and therefore can falsely claim "it's my money". 

Newsflash. They don't. There is no such thing as a billionnaire in a capitalist economy. If you knew how venture capital, loans and investment banking operated you'd know this. 

They're _renters_. Not _owners_. 

You're such a pathetic peasant that you don't even know who owns wealth and how a capitalist economy works.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> *If you question the idea of ownership, then that negates the idea that billionnaires actually even exist*. It counters the flawed perception that billionnaires both a) own their wealth and b) have a right to maintain ownership of wealth. Newsflash. They don't. There is no such thing as a billionnaire in a capitalist economy. If you knew how venture capital, loans and investment banking operated you'd know this.
> 
> They're _renters_. Not _owners_.
> 
> You're such a pathetic peasant that you don't even know who owns wealth and how a capitalist economy works.












it's like... a conspiracy and stuff.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> it's like... a conspiracy and stuff.


Didn't expect this to go any other way. But yeah, keep defending the system you don't even understand. 

There have always been willing serfs that the ruling class uses as its pawns.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Didn't expect this to go any other way. But yeah, keep defending the system you don't even understand.
> 
> There have always been willing serfs that the ruling class uses as its pawns.


so you're a pawn?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> so you're a pawn?


Strike 3. I think that's good enough now to put your posts on mental ignore since you cannot be engaged in a fruitful discussion since you turn into a mess once actually engaged.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Strike 3. I think that's good enough now to put your posts on mental ignore since you cannot be engaged in a fruitful discussion since you turn into a mess once actually engaged.


yes actually if you could refrain from responding to any of my posts that would be grand. 

thanks.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> yes actually if you could refrain from responding to any of my posts that would be grand.
> 
> thanks.


I'm happy to give you your safe space.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I'm happy to give you your safe space.


yes comrade.

equal spaces for everyone.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy to give you your safe space.
> 
> 
> 
> yes comrade.
> 
> equal spaces for everyone.
Click to expand...

Venezuela though.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> Venezuela though.


"comrade" :lol


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

@draykorinee

you've yet to provide a valid reason as to why it's immoral to have a lot of money.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

the year is 2050. jeff bezos has exploited his workers and gotten enough free government subsidies to become the worlds first trillionaire. the koch brothers and the walton family are not far behind. crime rates in america are way up, wages haven't increased in decades, a record number of people are defaulting on their houses and cars and can't afford to put food on the table for their kids. they would rebel, but the richest of the world have bought all our politicians and all our media and have their own private armies. 

climate change has driven out billions of people from latin america, africa, and the middle east whose homelands have become uninhabitable from global warming(and being bombed for oil) and as they flee for a marginally better world in america, big government builds a YUGE wall across the entire country and any refugees who comes within 10 feet get shot on sight. toddlers included.

berzerker's beard, having lost his house due to bankruptcy from a medical emergency, is no longer able to post on wrestlingforum. instead, he's on the street with a cardboard sign. on one side it says "will work for food". on the other it says "being a trillionaire is not immoral".


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-colin-kaepernick-protest-backfires/39053759/

Sports store is forced to close after owner's Nike-Colin Kaepernick protest backfires


Nike's 2018 "Just Do It" campaign, which featured Colin Kaepernick, drew competing reactions from both sides of the political spectrum when it debuted last fall.

For Colorado Springs' Prime Time Sports owner Stephen Martin, it meant dropping all Nike gear. Now, his store is closing.

Martin told koaa.com that he will close the sports apparel store after 20 years because he can no longer afford his lease. He blamed his protest of Nike for playing a major part in the store's closure.

"Being a sports store without Nike is kind of like being a milk store without milk or a gas station without gas. How do you do it? They have a monopoly on jerseys," Martin told koaa.com.

Martin said he's the only full-service, licensed fan shop between Castle Rock and the New Mexico border. Despite having all 32 NFL teams' apparel in his store, he doesn't have any current players' jerseys because of his decision to drop all Nike apparel.


Prime Time also canceled an autograph signing with Brandon Marshall after the Broncos linebacker protested police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem in 2016.

Martin told koaa.com he realized that Kaepernick and Marshall have a lot of supporters who can shop elsewhere.

"As much as I hate to admit this, perhaps there are more Brandon Marshall and Colin Kaepernick supporters out there than I realized," he said.

Martin expects to close the store next month.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-colin-kaepernick-protest-backfires/39053759/
> 
> Sports store is forced to close after owner's Nike-Colin Kaepernick protest backfires
> 
> 
> Nike's 2018 "Just Do It" campaign, which featured Colin Kaepernick, drew competing reactions from both sides of the political spectrum when it debuted last fall.
> 
> For Colorado Springs' Prime Time Sports owner Stephen Martin, it meant dropping all Nike gear. Now, his store is closing.
> 
> Martin told koaa.com that he will close the sports apparel store after 20 years because he can no longer afford his lease. He blamed his protest of Nike for playing a major part in the store's closure.
> 
> "Being a sports store without Nike is kind of like being a milk store without milk or a gas station without gas. How do you do it? They have a monopoly on jerseys," Martin told koaa.com.
> 
> Martin said he's the only full-service, licensed fan shop between Castle Rock and the New Mexico border. Despite having all 32 NFL teams' apparel in his store, he doesn't have any current players' jerseys because of his decision to drop all Nike apparel.
> 
> 
> Prime Time also canceled an autograph signing with Brandon Marshall after the Broncos linebacker protested police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem in 2016.
> 
> Martin told koaa.com he realized that Kaepernick and Marshall have a lot of supporters who can shop elsewhere.
> 
> "As much as I hate to admit this, perhaps there are more Brandon Marshall and Colin Kaepernick supporters out there than I realized," he said.
> 
> Martin expects to close the store next month.


No matter what side of the fence you are on in regards to Kaepernick, not selling Nike gear at a sports store was your downfall (like he mentioned). Nike is probably the biggest apparel company in sports. They sponsor the kits of some of the biggest soccer teams in the world, have the NFL, and also athletes as well (Lebron, Tiger, Serena, Ronaldo).


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-colin-kaepernick-protest-backfires/39053759/
> 
> Sports store is forced to close after owner's Nike-Colin Kaepernick protest backfires
> 
> 
> Nike's 2018 "Just Do It" campaign, which featured Colin Kaepernick, drew competing reactions from both sides of the political spectrum when it debuted last fall.
> 
> For Colorado Springs' Prime Time Sports owner Stephen Martin, it meant dropping all Nike gear. Now, his store is closing.
> 
> Martin told koaa.com that he will close the sports apparel store after 20 years because he can no longer afford his lease. He blamed his protest of Nike for playing a major part in the store's closure.
> 
> "Being a sports store without Nike is kind of like being a milk store without milk or a gas station without gas. How do you do it? They have a monopoly on jerseys," Martin told koaa.com.
> 
> Martin said he's the only full-service, licensed fan shop between Castle Rock and the New Mexico border. Despite having all 32 NFL teams' apparel in his store, he doesn't have any current players' jerseys because of his decision to drop all Nike apparel.
> 
> 
> Prime Time also canceled an autograph signing with Brandon Marshall after the Broncos linebacker protested police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem in 2016.
> 
> Martin told koaa.com he realized that Kaepernick and Marshall have a lot of supporters who can shop elsewhere.
> 
> "As much as I hate to admit this, perhaps there are more Brandon Marshall and Colin Kaepernick supporters out there than I realized," he said.
> 
> Martin expects to close the store next month.


It's never a wise move to put politics above business. It's an even dumber move to protest such a hot button issue by removing your largest source of merchandise.

You can personally believe what you want, but Nike just made a commercial. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Speaking of Kaepernick

https://985thesportshub.com/2019/02...6Yc0tRmUL4mRm9huoj96POTqFpwYY4Z94vjQDelCY3018

NFL, Colin Kaepernick settle collusion lawsuit


By Matt McCarthy, 985TheSportsHub.com


The National Football League and lawyers working on behalf of former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick have struck a deal to end a lawsuit that alleged teams were colluding to keep Kaepernick out of the NFL.

The two sides announced the end to the litigation on Friday, saying they had decided to "resolve the pending grievances."

Former 49ers safety and current Carolina Panthers player Eric Reid was also apart of the legal action.

"For the past several months, counsel for Mr. Kaepernick and Mr. Reid have engaged in an ongoing dialogue with representatives of the NFL," the two sides said in a statement. "As a result of those discussions, the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party."

Kaepernick has remained out of the league since 2017. He began kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 to protest racial inequality and police brutality, drawing the ire of many and strong support from others.

The NFL Players Association issued a statement Friday signaling their support for Kaepernick and Reid.

"Today, we were informed by the NFL of the settlement of the Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid collusion cases,” the Players Association said. “We are not privy to the details of the settlement, but support the decision by the players and their counsel. We continuously supported Colin and Eric from the start of their protests, participated with their lawyers throughout their legal proceedings and were prepared to participate in the upcoming trial in pursuit of both truth and justice for what we believe the NFL and its clubs did to them. We are glad that Eric has earned a job and a new contract, and we continue to hope that Colin gets his opportunity as well.”

Yahoo Sports reported Friday that the collusion case was set for a final hearing later this month.

*NFL reporter Mike Freeman reported that the settlement may have been somewhere in the $60-$80 million range.*


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Speaking of Kaepernick
> 
> https://985thesportshub.com/2019/02...6Yc0tRmUL4mRm9huoj96POTqFpwYY4Z94vjQDelCY3018
> 
> NFL, Colin Kaepernick settle collusion lawsuit
> 
> 
> By Matt McCarthy, 985TheSportsHub.com
> 
> 
> The National Football League and lawyers working on behalf of former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick have struck a deal to end a lawsuit that alleged teams were colluding to keep Kaepernick out of the NFL.
> 
> The two sides announced the end to the litigation on Friday, saying they had decided to "resolve the pending grievances."
> 
> Former 49ers safety and current Carolina Panthers player Eric Reid was also apart of the legal action.
> 
> "For the past several months, counsel for Mr. Kaepernick and Mr. Reid have engaged in an ongoing dialogue with representatives of the NFL," the two sides said in a statement. "As a result of those discussions, the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party."
> 
> Kaepernick has remained out of the league since 2017. He began kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 to protest racial inequality and police brutality, drawing the ire of many and strong support from others.
> 
> The NFL Players Association issued a statement Friday signaling their support for Kaepernick and Reid.
> 
> "Today, we were informed by the NFL of the settlement of the Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid collusion cases,” the Players Association said. “We are not privy to the details of the settlement, but support the decision by the players and their counsel. We continuously supported Colin and Eric from the start of their protests, participated with their lawyers throughout their legal proceedings and were prepared to participate in the upcoming trial in pursuit of both truth and justice for what we believe the NFL and its clubs did to them. We are glad that Eric has earned a job and a new contract, and we continue to hope that Colin gets his opportunity as well.”
> 
> Yahoo Sports reported Friday that the collusion case was set for a final hearing later this month.
> 
> *NFL reporter Mike Freeman reported that the settlement may have been somewhere in the $60-$80 million range.*


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> @draykorinee
> 
> you've yet to provide a valid reason as to why it's immoral to have a lot of money.


You want me to provide objective reasoning to why my morality sees something different to others. Not going to happen.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Speaking of Kaepernick
> 
> https://985thesportshub.com/2019/02...6Yc0tRmUL4mRm9huoj96POTqFpwYY4Z94vjQDelCY3018
> 
> NFL, Colin Kaepernick settle collusion lawsuit
> 
> 
> By Matt McCarthy, 985TheSportsHub.com
> 
> 
> The National Football League and lawyers working on behalf of former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick have struck a deal to end a lawsuit that alleged teams were colluding to keep Kaepernick out of the NFL.
> 
> The two sides announced the end to the litigation on Friday, saying they had decided to "resolve the pending grievances."
> 
> Former 49ers safety and current Carolina Panthers player Eric Reid was also apart of the legal action.
> 
> "For the past several months, counsel for Mr. Kaepernick and Mr. Reid have engaged in an ongoing dialogue with representatives of the NFL," the two sides said in a statement. "As a result of those discussions, the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party."
> 
> Kaepernick has remained out of the league since 2017. He began kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 to protest racial inequality and police brutality, drawing the ire of many and strong support from others.
> 
> The NFL Players Association issued a statement Friday signaling their support for Kaepernick and Reid.
> 
> "Today, we were informed by the NFL of the settlement of the Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid collusion cases,” the Players Association said. “We are not privy to the details of the settlement, but support the decision by the players and their counsel. We continuously supported Colin and Eric from the start of their protests, participated with their lawyers throughout their legal proceedings and were prepared to participate in the upcoming trial in pursuit of both truth and justice for what we believe the NFL and its clubs did to them. We are glad that Eric has earned a job and a new contract, and we continue to hope that Colin gets his opportunity as well.”
> 
> Yahoo Sports reported Friday that the collusion case was set for a final hearing later this month.
> 
> *NFL reporter Mike Freeman reported that the settlement may have been somewhere in the $60-$80 million range.*


He made more money in the settlement than he would have playing football

Well played Kap, well played


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Watch out Colin, they think you are immoral and want to tax you at 70-90%.


----------



## Draykorinee

777 said:


> Watch out Colin, they think you are immoral and want to tax you at 70-90%. <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" class="inlineimg" />


Agreed, he should be taxed at 70% after 10mil


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> Watch out Colin, they think you are immoral and want to tax you at 70-90%.


look another person who does not understand marginal tax rates


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> look another person who does not understand marginal tax rates


I'm sure Kaepernick is totally down with what you're selling.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> I'm sure Kaepernick is totally down with what you're selling.


He wouldn't be if he hired you as a tax lawyer.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> You want me to provide objective reasoning to why my morality sees something different to others. Not going to happen.


_"you mean i actually have to defend my beliefs and my arguments using facts and reason?" pfttt!"_










^ :lol

interesting. you don't wanna have to defend your own morality yet you had no problem judging and shaming others because of theirs. 

very telling.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> He wouldn't be if he hired you as a tax lawyer.


Oh dear god no, that would be a disaster. My wife handles the books, I'm a fucking philosopher...


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want me to provide objective reasoning to why my morality sees something different to others. Not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> _"you mean i actually have to defend my beliefs and my arguments using facts and reason?" pfttt!"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> interesting. you don't wanna have to defend your own morality yet you had no problem judging and shaming others because of theirs.
> 
> very telling.
Click to expand...

That's how subjective mortality works, sorry that didn't meet your standards but I don't make any claims to be the defacto correct answer on greed and morality.
I don't shame anyone, ever, you've made up an argument on your own.

I don't feel inclined to engage with you too much after your embarrassing attempt to talk about capitalism, you ran quick from that.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> Oh dear god no, that would be a disaster. My wife handles the books, I'm a fucking philosopher...


Hey, not everyone can bring equally useful skills in a marriage. 

But they can work together to pool their resources and abilities.


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Hey, not everyone can bring equally useful skills in a marriage.
> 
> But they can work together to pool their resources and abilities.


Some animals are more useful than others...I make a decent enough mule though.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Draykorinee said:


> I don't shame anyone, ever, you've made up an argument on your own.





Draykorinee said:


> Legally no, morally it's reprehensible. I'd want it made an impossibility through taxation.


^ this is you shaming other people.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*






People are focusing on the hip hop lie but the biggest takeaway from me is the fact that she's bragging about how she's smoked weed before yet still went on to prosecute people for marijuana crimes. That's just completely wicked.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

When it comes to the rich and wealthy I don't hate them for being rich, I can understand everyone trying to reach into your purse trying to get a piece of you.

What I don't like is the wealthy or giant Corporations paying little to no taxes, virtue signaling and preaching on high while living in walled off and gated communities and paying people jack shit for their work.

The rich don't want any of us to join their club, they don't want a middle class. 

They just want an army of serfs to serve their needs, die for them in their wars and listen to their inane philosophy in awe of them. 

BM mentioned Walmart, before Walmart became what it was, it's motto was something like "Built in America for Americans". It was built on old school American business, when the man that made it possible died, what they do? Start buying cheap stuff from China and completely backtrack on everything. 

Walmart isn't the only one, nobody sees the pattern of the rich and mega corporations selling out American workers for cheap labor and cheap materials? It happens with every industry now, it's sickening.

Ensuring these people and companies pay taxes is something I'd like to see but in the end it doesn't matter, the taxes would get squandered on something stupid because our Politicians are retards.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> When it comes to the rich and wealthy I don't hate them for being rich, I can understand everyone trying to reach into your purse trying to get a piece of you.
> 
> *What I don't like is the wealthy paying little to no taxes*, virtue signaling and preaching on high while living in walled off and gated communities and paying people jack shit for their work.
> 
> The rich don't want any of us to join their club, they don't want a middle class.
> 
> They just want an army of serfs to serve their needs, die for them in their wars and listen to their inane philosophy in awe of them.
> 
> BM mentioned Walmart, before Walmart became what it was, it's motto was something like "Built in America for Americans". It was built on old school American business, when the man that made it possible died, what they do? Start buying cheap stuff from China and completely backtrack on everything.
> 
> Walmart isn't the only one, nobody sees the pattern of the rich and mega corporations selling out American works for cheap labor and cheap materials? It happens with every industry now, it's sickening.
> 
> Ensuring these people and companies pay taxes is something I'd like to see but in the end it doesn't matter, the taxes would get squandered on something stupid because our Politicians are retards.














> The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
> 
> The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.
> 
> In other words, the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Which small percentile of tax payers also paid 3 percent or more? You might have guessed it. It is the top 0.001%, or about 1,400 taxpayers. That group alone paid 3.25 percent of all income taxes. In 2001, the bottom 50 percent paid nearly 5 percent whereas the top 0.001 percent of filers paid 2.3 percent of income taxes.
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


>


They pay more of a percent of the total money taken in taxes because the top 1% makes more money than the combined bottom 90%. So, of course, the total amount they pay in taxes is more than the bottom 90% but it should be way more not just a little more.

Example

If you have 10 people and 2 of them make a million bucks each and then the other 8 only make 30,000 each.

When you take out taxes of course when you add in all the tax money the two making a million each will pay more than the combined 8 because they make millions.

It still does not mean they are paying their fair share of taxes

You are really not going to claim the rich have all these loopholes to pay less in taxes than they should be are you?


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> They pay more of a percent of the total money taken in taxes because the top 1% makes more money than the combined bottom 90%. So, of course, the total amount they pay in taxes is more than the bottom 90% but it should be way more not just a little more.
> 
> Example
> 
> If you have 10 people and 2 of them make a million bucks each and then the other 8 only make 30,000 each.
> 
> When you take out taxes of course when you add in all the tax money the two making a million each will pay more than the combined 8 because they make millions.
> 
> It still does not mean they are paying their fair share of taxes


The original post said they paid little to no taxes. It's just a false statement.

What constitutes their fair share is a different conversation, but if you don't think the top 1% paying more than a third of all taxes taken in is fair, then you and I won't agree on what's considered a fair share.

Perhaps they could pay some more, but to say they aren't paying their fair share would be disingenuous in my opinion.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

BM you haven't answered me yet.

You claimed you make 40k a year. That's A LOT of money compared to some poor people living in other countries who have nothing.

Why shouldn't we take 70% of YOUR income and redistribute it to less fortunate people? What makes YOU so special? Why should YOU get to horde all that money?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> The original post said they paid little to no taxes. It's just a false statement.
> 
> What constitutes their fair share is a different conversation, but if you don't think the top 1% paying more than a third of all taxes taken in is fair, then you and I won't agree on what's considered a fair share.
> 
> Perhaps they could pay some more, but to say they aren't paying their fair share would be disingenuous in my opinion.


Amazon paid zero in taxes last year but that is not a person.

As for what constitutes their fair share, do you think if people are paying less than they should because of hoopholes is them not paying their fair share, or are you ok with people cheating the system to pay less in taxes?


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Amazon paid zero in taxes last year but that is not a person.
> 
> As for what constitutes their fair share, do you think if people are paying less than they should because of *hoopholes* is them not paying their fair share, or are you ok with people cheating the system to pay less in taxes?


He was talking about the wealthy, not a corporation specifically. I don't know why Amazon didn't pay any taxes and you'd have to provide me a link saying they didn't and why they didn't before I could comment.

Without knowing the specifics I'd say no, that isn't their fair share. They probably should have been taxed something.

That said, I'm going to quote your least favorite person and say if they did in fact use a loophole, that's not a knock on them, we have to close the loopholes. :draper2

Also, Hoopholes. That should be the name of a basketball spoof film. :banderas2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> He was talking about the wealthy, not a corporation specifically. I don't know why Amazon didn't pay any taxes and you'd have to provide me a link saying they didn't and why they didn't before I could comment.
> 
> Without knowing the specifics I'd say no, that isn't their fair share. They probably should have been taxed something.
> 
> That said, I'm going to quote your least favorite person and say if they did in fact use a loophole, that's not a knock on them, we have to close the loopholes. :draper2
> 
> Also, Hoopholes. That should be the name of a basketball spoof film. :banderas2



Nice deflection. Why can't you just answer a question straight up.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nice deflection. Why can't you just answer a question straight up.


I did actually. I said close the loopholes.

Ask for the specifics of Amazon, I don't know enough to give a straight answer, but I did say I thought they should have been taxed. I'm not sure how they didn't answer your question.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> I did actually. I said close the loopholes.
> 
> Ask for the specifics of Amazon, I don't know enough to give a straight answer, but I did say I thought they should have been taxed. I'm not sure how they didn't answer your question.


You did not answer the question. You deflected it

I will ask it another way.

If someone was supposed to pay one million in taxes but instead uses loopholes to instead only pay 250,000 they are paying their fair share in taxes since they are paying less than they should be.

Yes or no.


----------



## Deathstroke

birthday_massacre said:


> You did not answer the question. You deflected it
> 
> I will ask it another way.
> 
> If someone was supposed to pay one million in taxes but instead uses loopholes to instead only pay 250,000 they are paying their fair share in taxes since they are paying less than they should be.
> 
> Yes or no.


I said close the loopholes. That was my answer. It's a legit answer. :draper2

I'm never going to say $250,000 isn't fair. I wouldn't pay that in a lifetime, let alone a single year and if they are legally allowed to get away with it, that's on the law. Get the law changed.

I'm trying to find middle ground here because I do think if you use a loophole to avoid taxes, the loophole should be closed, but you won't get me to agree that most wealthy people don't pay their fair share.



birthday_massacre said:


> You did not answer the question. You deflected it
> 
> I will ask it another way.
> 
> If someone was supposed to pay one million in taxes but instead uses loopholes to instead only pay 250,000 they are paying their fair share in taxes since they are paying less than they should be.
> 
> Yes or no.


I also said this: _Without knowing the specifics I'd say no, that isn't their fair share. They probably should have been taxed something._

So I'm not sure why you're trying to say I deflected.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> I said close the loopholes. That was my answer. It's a legit answer. :draper2
> 
> I'm never going to say $250,000 isn't fair. I wouldn't pay that in a lifetime, let alone a single year and if they are legally allowed to get away with it, that's on the law. Get the law changed.
> 
> I'm trying to find middle ground here because I do think if you use a loophole to avoid taxes, the loophole should be closed, but you won't get me to agree that most wealthy people don't pay their fair share.


So you are going to keep deflecting. Got it. There is no middle ground. It's a yes or no question. Why can't you just say yes no matter how little the rich pay in taxes you think that is fair, That is what you keep dancing around but just dont want to come out and admit it.

Of course, you will pay 250,000 in taxes in a lifetime. if you average 40-50k per year over your career you will end up about right about 250,000 in taxes

250,000 in taxes wouldn't be fair if someone made 10 million in salary in one year. That wouldn't even be close to being fair but from what you seem to be claiming you think that would be more than fair


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you are going to keep deflecting. Got it. *There is no middle ground*. It's a yes or no question. Why can't you just say yes no matter how little the rich pay in taxes you think that is fair, That is what you keep dancing around but just dont want to come out and admit it.
> 
> Of course, you will pay 250,000 in taxes in a lifetime. if you average 40-50k per year over your career you will end up about right about 250,000 in taxes
> 
> 250,000 in taxes wouldn't be fair if someone made 10 million in salary in one year. That wouldn't even be close to being fair but from what you seem to be claiming you think that would be more than fair


You need to learn the meaning of the word deflecting. I answered your question. Several times.

Both when it came to Amazon and then again in the hypothetical. The world doesn't always work in black and white. I know for you it does, but for the rest of us we live in a world of gray.

I already said Amazon probably wasn't paying their fair share if they did legitimately pay zero in taxes. That was literally your first example. Asked and answered.

I also said paying $250,000 would always be fair in my opinion because they're paying according to you my lifetime's worth in a single year. If the amount they should be paying is significantly more than that I did say close the loopholes.

If they are legally allowed to pay less, they will. That's how the world works. Close the loopholes. I'll keep saying that until you realize that's a legit answer to your question. If the loopholes are closed, they pay closer to whatever you deemed fair.

_There is no middle ground_. I can see that. You have zero desire to cross the aisle. Kill or be killed with you. I think this is the last I'll be interacting with you for a while.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

A while back, @CamillePunk took the political compass test and went into detail behind each of his answers. I've decided to do the same as on a few issues I have felt my views shift somewhat which I'll be able to explain some of that in going through this test.

I thought this would be an interesting exercise for myself even if it's not for anyone else :lol. So without further ado....:



Spoiler: My Answers



*If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.*

Agree - The most important metric for this question in my opinion is what is good for the individual, since that is what any nation or society is essentially made up of. Which is more important than any group or business.

*I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.*

Strongly Disagree - Basically the same answer CP gave, see: Nazi Germany

*No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.*

Disagree - In a sense it is pride in one's nation that drives people forward to better it and leave it in a better place than it was once we all pass. We all have history which we can learn from and draw inspiration to better ourselves, families and communities at large. There's nothing wrong with a healthy amount of patriotism.

*Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.*

Strongly Disagree - Absolute nonsense, there are advantages and disadvantages between each race mapped out on average. There is no super race that exists.

*The enemy of my enemy is my friend.*

Strongly Disagree - With the amount of history I've learned I know this is definitely not true :lol. If anyone wants a well known example, see when the Soviet Union aligned with Nazi Germany at the beginning of WW2 or the US aligning with the Mujahadeen against the Soviet Union.

*Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.*

Disagree - One can say International Law can be shady which is true and there can certainly be hypothetically speaking situations where it may be justified but has that ever really played out in the real world? Especially in modern historical context. So I have to disagree on this premise.

*There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.*

Agree - Used to be ignorant on this admittedly but with Trump being president and it being shoved in everyone's faces I can't not agree. Increasingly partisan individuals from Hollywood pushing their views into the mainstream on award shows which have nothing to do with politics or late night hosts who believe they are political experts as a couple of examples. Infotainment is a term for a reason. 

*People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.*

Agree - Taking economics out of the equation, on a day to day interaction basis I have had more in common with and friends from different nationality backgrounds than I have had from people in the upper classes.

*Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.*

Agree - Trying to achieve full employment means absolutely nothing if the cost of living is so high due to out of control inflation. You can always create and replace jobs, a drop in employment levels while not good can always be recovered. Inflation can ruin economies for years, you only have to look back historically, especially back to the 1970's to see this.

*Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.*

Agree - On the whole I agree with this. Whilst individuals and businesses are more aware of the impact they can have on the environment, if they feel as though they can get away with taking short cuts to save money which just so happens to damage the environment then they will take advantage of that which ultimately effects all of us. So I feel government has a legitimate role here.

On a broader aspect of climate change and moving to renewable energies, I strongly disagree with those who believe the best way to tackle these issues is to have a large scale government scheme or to raise carbon taxes. The biggest issue right now in terms of people moving over to renewable energy especially in the long term is and will be price. I don't see how government taking over the energy market away from the private sector will help. Especially when Germany has the highest energy costs in Europe and has 30% of it's energy market in the public sector or the UK being the next most expensive after that when the recent price cap that was introduce increased price tariffs up to 40%.

*“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea.*

Strongly Disagree - I know after a while it becomes a bit of a meme but it doesn't make it any less true: who gets to decide what the need is and how do you implement that so that whoever is in charge doesn't either a) become corrupted with all the power and control that they now have over an economy/nation or b) completely mismanage it by not being able to distribute and manage the economic sectors and resources of the economy?

No government can possibly plan an economy to be able to achieve such a feat because they don't have the same signals that a free market does spontaneously through the actions of individuals. Not to mention after getting through all the basics that people can agree upon in terms of need, people have different ideas and interpretations on what even constitutes as needs instead of wants or luxuries. 

*It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
*

Disagree - I don't see why not for the sheer convenience of it, not to mention it's cheap and high in demand. There are other alternatives if you want water for free.

*Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.*

Strongly Disagree - Having freedom and liberty also means being able to own your own home or property. It's the backbone of liberal democracies. Nobody should be forced to live in communal accommodation if they don't want to, that's a ridiculous assertion. Not to mention people tend to look after their own possessions than they would if it were just given to them by the state. I'm sorry but it's true.

*It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.*

Agree - I'd much rather personal fortunes being made through actually producing things which are useful to other people and actually fulfill a market need that people want. Making money from the stock market adds nothing to the productivity or well being of a nation and therefore is useless on the whole. I don't think banning it would help at all but I definitely don't like it.

*Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.*

Disagree: Protectionism hurts both the businesses and consumers that it effects. It drives up the costs of goods and services for consumers and producers, it makes resources for those goods more expensive and increases the costs for imports and exports. The only benefits it really has are for some businesses which only base their transactions in their country of origin. But considering how we have global economy and that a lot of profitable businesses rely on trade and that number continues to grow it really makes no sense to put up tariffs and other trade barriers to try to solve problems which can be addressed through other means. It causes more harm than good.

*The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.*

Agree - It is not the responsibility of a company to tell me how they morally feel about a particular issue. They have no baring on what is or isn't the societal topic of the day.

*The rich are too highly taxed.*

Agree - Taxation is Theft

Well for most people, I think it would depend on where they live, what the tax rates are and what their views are on what is or isn't an acceptable amount to pay. Here in the UK, the highest bracket for £150,000 and above is 45% which whilst it's not as high as say the Nordic countries is still pretty damn high. £150,000 a year whilst a lot isn't what I would class as super rich.

I'm not a proponent of high taxes on the rich like the Nordic countries do because honestly I don't think having a higher tax rate would actually solve the issues with taxation that largely plagues modern nations. Here in the UK for example, the top 1% pays around 28% of all taxation whilst the top 50% earners pay around 92% of all tax. So I think they pay more than their fair share. Having said that, I think in terms of marginal tax rates, the bigger problem here in Britain is the middle earners as everything above around £46,000 to £150,000 pay 40% in terms of income tax. Which is significantly too high in my opinion.

The biggest problems in terms of taxation is the amount of money government wastes and doesn't spend properly which honestly, more tax money towards the government isn't going to solve that issue, if anything it might make it worse and tax avoidance/evasion, which has less to do with the actual rates and more to do with the heavily bureaucratic and bloated tax code and other tax laws which have little to do with the rates themselves.

So I agree the rich are taxed too high, and the middle earners are especially taxed too high here in the UK. Despite this though and despite my criticisms of progressive tax systems in general, my opinion on tax systems has recently shifted. I don't think any of them are particularly great and have their own sets of problems but despite being historically against the progressive system for the reasons I have set out and more, I've recently come to the conclusion that it's probably the best we have right now out of a bad bunch.

Whilst a flat tax or a consumption tax has their benefits (especially the latter due to the potential savings one can make), one thing which I can't ignore is that in terms of outcome, they are regressive when it comes to lower income families and individuals. I don't particularly care about taxing higher earners but I do care about alleviating the burden from lower earners. This is why I'm for raising the income threshold where individuals pay no tax at all. Most flat tax proposals have this too and in reality would require a massive cut in the size and scope in government.

Whilst I agree in principal that the government is too big and bloated, thus the size of the state needs to be reduced, I've turned away from that idea what it comes to tax. I've for now begrudgingly come to the conclusion the current system is the best of a bad bunch.

This may change again over time, I've certainly not come to a complete solid footing on this issue. It's something I've thought about a lot and will continue to. 

*Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care.*

Agree - Absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be the case. If an individual or a family has the means and wants to have access to further healthcare cover, why should they be stopped?

Universal healthcare coverage on the whole is a good thing and is beneficial for countries to have. That does not mean the system has to or should be monopolized where 90%-95% of the country cannot realistically opt out of the majority provider with little to no realistic choice in the healthcare market.

You can have a universal system whilst still retaining the freedom to choose in healthcare and when taking the Nordic countries out of the equation who benefit from having low populations, they are the best healthcare systems around. See - Switzerland, Holland, Singapore etc.

*Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.*

Agree - I have a mixed view on this, on the one hand we already have laws on the books which do this and when it comes to for example health and safety standards for food or prescription drugs, I think the government does potentially have a role for this.

On the other, it's true that governments often mislead the public and sometimes that is also in conjecture with big business. I do think in many instances also it is better for consumers to vote with their feet and hit companies where it hurts which is their bottom line. Tepidly agreeing with this statement for now.

*A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.*

Agree - Monopolies are the greatest economic evil there is in most economic sectors including education and healthcare, that's a view of mine that hasn't and isn't likely to change. This is part of it.

*The freer the market, the freer the people.*

Agree - You cannot have long lasting and prosperous freedom without economic liberty. Period.

*Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal.*

Disagree - I've become more Conservative over the years when it comes to abortion, though I still consider myself pro-choice. I think there should be heavy regulation of it. For some of the more idealistic pro-lifers, they have to realize that in order for total restriction of abortion to work, there has to really be a complete societal and cultural shift towards their values on what is life. Until that happens, banning it would only cause another prohibition issue which would likely make things worse.

Ideally, I would ban after the first trimester with the exception of the mother's life being in danger. Partly because how developed the fetus becomes already after 12 weeks and partly because most women get abortions in that time period. So that makes the most sense. My views are basically modeled after how Belgium deals with this question. Though I see no reason to change the law in the UK as it's pretty moderate and abortion is not a real issue here.

Mid and especially late term abortions are horrific. I see no good reason to not ban them.

One thing I didn't realize until a few years ago is not only is abortion such a hot button issue because of religiosity but also because European countries on the whole actually regulate abortion more heavily than the US. I had no idea how lenient America's abortion laws actually are.

*All authority should be questioned.*

Strongly Agree - Unless you believe liberty is defined as the freedom of the state i.e fascism I don't see how anyone could disagree.

*An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.*

Strongly Disagree - You don't solve barbarism with more barbarism. [2]

*Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.*

Agree - I see no reason why the taxpayer should have to fund these things as they are not essential. If there is enough interest that people are willing to voluntarily pay to visit and use these facilities then they that should tell you they are worth keeping around.

*Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.*

Agree - *Education* I feel should be compulsory up to a certain point. But schooling in how we traditionally know it I feel should not be. As individuals we all learn different ways and have different strengths. This is no different for students. Some would do better and thrive in tech schools or trade schools, some are made better for home schooling and as much as this may anger some people, honestly there are instances where the person in question would be better off going to work early and gaining experience that way as they are wasting away in state schools.

This is one of the reasons why I am for school choice. Especially with all the technology at our finger tips and the potential for self learning. There's less reason for a one size fits all top down approach to education than ever before. Students and parents deserve choices and options.

*All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.*

Strongly Disagree - How would we learn about different cultures and customs otherwise?

*Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.*

Disagree - If you have to resort to violence to control your children then you aren't a good parent.

*It’s natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.*

Strongly Agree - EVERYONE has secrets, no matter what age.

*Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.*

Strongly Agree - Absolutely, putting substances into your own body should not be a crime.

*The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.*

Disagree - No, it should be to develop critical thinking skills so they learn to question the world around them and ultimately educate themselves. Anyone can teach someone to pass a test if that person pays attention, it's much more difficult to teach them to develop transferable skills. That's one of the biggest problems with the UK's current education system.

*People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.*

Strongly Disagree - The state has no business deciding who should or shouldn't have kids.

*The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.*

Disagree - Sometimes in adulthood especially, there needs to be dissenting voices.

*There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.*

Strongly Disagree - Do you think Saudi Arabia's culture is equal to the west? That should give you your answer.

*Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support.*

Strongly Agree - Who wants to support layabouts?

*When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.*

Disagree - It's better to face those problems head on. I need to take my own advice :lol.

*First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.*

Disagree - The big problem here actually is with 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants who refuse to integrate despite being born here, especially those in Islamic cultures. That's mainly due to the government pushing multiculturalism as a political venture and abandoning the values and traditions of what makes us British. Thus there are no common values and ethics mainly for minority groups to rally around.

First generation immigrants came here to actually seek out and be a part of our values and traditions and tried their upmost to integrate as best as they can. Partly because they actually wanted to be a part of the larger community and partly because we didn't abandon our shared values to push multiculturalism which is based on no real values of substance at all.

*What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.*

Disagree - I don't see this as a black and white issue like some would. There are aspects where we do benefit every day from goods and services, particularly products which are made from businesses which in the modern world we would not survive without or at least be a lot worse off.

Having said that, OBVIOUSLY when corporations get involved with state power they only look out for themselves and their own interests and bottom line. Which has zero benefit for the individual and every day person.

*No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding*.

Strongly Agree - No matter how much they will try to convince you, there is no such thing as a non-partisan and unbiased media. Even those ran by the state will be heavily biased, usually towards the established order and hostile towards anything which changes it (UKIP, Corbyn, Brexit).

Because of the heavily partisan nature of the media, the taxpayer should not be expected to prop them up. 

*Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.*

Strongly Agree - You'd be blind not to see it. Privacy rights have all but been destroyed.

*A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.*

Strongly Disagree - There's nothing about a dictatorship that signals progress. 

*Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.*

Strongly Disagree - We have had over a thousand people arrested in the UK for so called hate speech because of things being said on Twitter. I don't think that's a sign that surveillance is being enforced proportionately.

*The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes*.

Strongly Disagree - The state should not have the power to kill it's own civilians. One wrong conviction of the death penalty is one too many, you can never get that life back. You can at least release a prisoner if they are in jail and have been wrongly convicted. 

*In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.*

Strongly Disagree - Again, not a fan of dictatorship.

*Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all.*

Disagree - People can think whatever they want about art. [2]

*In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.*

Disagree - Overall, rehabilitation is better. Particularly for less serious yet coercive crimes. Drug use shouldn't even have punishment as an example.

*It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.*

Agree - Whilst I understand the want to at least try to make people see right from wrong, there are some criminals who are too far gone. I wouldn't say they are that many, only really the most serious most egregious ones: some Murderers, rapists, pedophiles. Whilst rehabilitation on the whole I think has better outcomes, we have to be realistic about the people who are far from being able to be rehabilitated.

*The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.*

Disagree - Both have their places in a stable market.

*Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.*

Disagree - It's not up to me or anyone else what women's "duties" are, if there is even such a thing.

*Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.*

Agree - Don't know enough about this issue, my gut instinct tells me it's probably true but I'd have to look more into it which I always forget to :lol.

*Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity. *

Strongly Disagree - It is only challenging the establishment that positive change is made. Even if you agree overall with the established order you should always hold their feet to the fire.

*Astrology accurately explains many things.*

Strongly Disagree -say whaaaa?

*You cannot be moral without being religious.*

Disagree - Whether or not you're religious has no basis on if you are a moral human being.

*Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.*

Agree - Charity can't possibly cover everybody so the government should have a role to provide a safety net for those who fall through the cracks. However the welfare state has far too many problems for me to think that the government is better at helping the disadvantaged overall.

One of the untold reasons why UBI for example is becoming an increasingly talked about subject is people both on the left and right are starting to realize the inherent flaws in the welfare state and that it is no longer a viable way to provide sustenance for people in the long run, particularly with automation and AI on the horizon. 

*Some people are naturally unlucky.*

Agree - True. [2]

*It is important that my child’s school instills religious values.*

Disagree - Nah. [2]

*Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.*

Disagree - Non-Consensual sex i.e rape is immoral. Marriage has nothing to do with it. 

*A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.*

Agree - Not only for equality reasons but it's better for children to be brought up in a two parent household regardless if straight or homosexual than a single parent household or an orphanage.

*Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.*

Strongly Agree - No reason for the state to outlaw this.

*What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.*

Strongly Agree - Obviously. [2]

*No one can feel naturally homosexual.*

Disagree - False. [2]

*These days openness about sex has gone too far.*

Disagree - I don't think so, and overall it's better for people to be open about sex than repress it.




And this was the chart I got.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> You need to learn the meaning of the word deflecting. I answered your question. Several times.
> 
> Both when it came to Amazon and then again in the hypothetical. The world doesn't always work in black and white. I know for you it does, but for the rest of us we live in a world of gray.
> 
> I already said Amazon probably wasn't paying their fair share if they did legitimately pay zero in taxes. That was literally your first example. Asked and answered.
> 
> I also said paying $250,000 would always be fair in my opinion because they're paying according to you my lifetime's worth in a single year. If the amount they should be paying is significantly more than that I did say close the loopholes.
> 
> If they are legally allowed to pay less, they will. That's how the world works. Close the loopholes. I'll keep saying that until you realize that's a legit answer to your question. If the loopholes are closed, they pay closer to whatever you deemed fair.
> 
> _There is no middle ground_. I can see that. You have zero desire to cross the aisle. Kill or be killed with you. I think this is the last I'll be interacting with you for a while.


I don't think you know what deflecting means.

You were asked is someone paying their fair share if someone pays less in taxes because they abuse loopholes. That is a yes or no question. 
And your answer was close the loopholes. That is a deflection since you did not answer yes or no. Your answer was not to the question asked

Your logic also makes zero sense. You think someone making 10 million in one year paying 250,000 in taxes when it should be closer to 3-4 million because the 250,000 is what you would pay over your whole lifetime. 
How does that make any sense when you would have to work 200 years to make 10 million if you were making 50,000 per year.

And yes there is no middle ground when it comes to paying your fair share in taxes. Either you are or you are not.

And good don't interact with me because you can't answer a simple yes or no question and think someone making 10 million in a year only paying 250,000 in taxes is fair. You are not reasonable when it comes to things like this


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I don't think you know what deflecting means.
> 
> You were asked is someone paying their fair share if someone pays less in taxes because they abuse loopholes. That is a yes or no question.
> And your answer was close the loopholes. That is a deflection since you did not answer yes or no. Your answer was not to the question asked
> 
> Your logic also makes zero sense. You think someone making 10 million in one year paying 250,000 in taxes when it should be closer to 3-4 million because the 250,000 is what you would pay over your whole lifetime.
> How does that make any sense when you would have to work 200 years to make 10 million if you were making 50,000 per year.
> 
> And yes there is no middle ground when it comes to paying your fair share in taxes. Either you are or you are not.
> 
> And good don't interact with me because you can't answer a simple yes or no question and think someone making 10 million in a year only paying 250,000 in taxes is fair. You are not reasonable when it comes to things like this


Just because you don't like my answers, doesn't make it deflection. Not everything in life has a yes or no answer. Life comes with context.

I said no to Amazon and yes to $250,000. Those are both yes and no answers to your yes and no questions. I just put explanations on them because not everything in life is as simple a you think it should be.

I told you from the very beginning I had zero desire to discuss what is fair with you because anyone that disagrees with you is "unreasonable." No one paying 100x times more than me in taxes will ever get me to say they're not paying their fair share.

It's amazing you have zero ability to find middle ground with people.

I may believe the rich are taxed appropriately, but I would figure closing the loopholes so they at least pay something closer to what you assume is closer to fair would warrant some kind of something from you, but sure, I'm the unreasonable one.

I said from the very beginning the vast majority of the wealthy in this country pay their fair share. That is your yes to your yes and no question. Have a nice night now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> Just because you don't like my answers, doesn't make it deflection. Not everything in life has a yes or no answer. Life comes with context.
> 
> I said no to Amazon and yes to $250,000. Those are both yes and no answers to your yes and no questions. I just put explanations on them because not everything in life is as simple a you think it should be.
> 
> I told you from the very beginning I had zero desire to discuss what is fair with you because anyone that disagrees with you is "unreasonable." No one paying 100x times more than me in taxes will ever get me to say they're not paying their fair share.
> 
> It's amazing you have zero ability to find middle ground with people.
> 
> I may believe the rich are taxed appropriately, but I would figure closing the loopholes so they at least pay something closer to what you assume is closer to fair would warrant some kind of something from you, but sure, I'm the unreasonable one.
> 
> I said from the very beginning the vast majority of the wealthy in this country pay their fair share. That is your yes to your yes and no question. Have a nice night now.


If you think it's reasonable to only pay 250,000 in taxes for making 10 million then I can't even take you seriously.

Why don't you think someone paying 100x more dollars than you in taxes when they make millions of dollars more than you.

You don't even make any sense.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you think it's reasonable to only pay 250,000 in taxes for making 10 million then I can't even take you seriously.
> 
> Why don't you think someone paying 100x more than you in taxes when they make millions of dollars more than you.
> 
> You don't even make any sense.


They make more and pay more. That's perfectly fair, but they'd have to pay a shit ton less than they should for me to say a sum significantly higher than I'll pay in 50 years is unfair. If it is significantly less, than we need to close that loophole. You might think it's not possible to have a middling opinion, but I do think that's fair and unfair at the same time and it is why I've stated I do think the loopholes in those scenarios need to be closed.

Instead of intentionally trying to bait with nonsensical scenarios let's use real numbers, though. The average person making $10 million dollars paid just over $2 million in taxes in 2016. I believe that's incredibly fair. Which is what I was responding to in Miss Sally's post. If you don't think 2 mill is fair, that's why I said from the beginning I didn't want to talk about fair shares with you.


----------



## dele

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


>


37% is nothing. It's a large amount of money when you get to people who are worth billions of dollars, yes. Compared to the money that they keep, the benefit that they get from paying such a low tax (relatively) is enormous. If you taxed the $10,000,000 yearly income bracket and above at 55% they would complain and threaten to take their ball home a la Atlas Shrugged, but they wouldn't. 

As a person who formerly worked in Anti Money Laundering, what would be even better would be to enforce the AML/tax evasion laws on the books with regards to the super rich. I'd bet that 37% would jump pretty quickly.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> BM you haven't answered me yet.
> 
> You claimed you make 40k a year. That's A LOT of money compared to some poor people living in other countries who have nothing.
> 
> Why shouldn't we take 70% of YOUR income and redistribute it to less fortunate people? What makes YOU so special? Why should YOU get to horde all that money?


This is a whatabout. Yes, middle class Americans make more than the average person on on the planet. While $40k/ year is a lot of money to them, it's a relatively small amount if you live in America. Comparing the mindset of a person who makes $40,000 a year with the mindset of someone who makes $20+ million per year is asinine. Fucking troll harder.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> They make more and pay more. That's perfectly fair, but they'd have to pay a shit ton less than they should for me to say a sum significantly higher than I'll pay in 50 years is unfair. If it is significantly less, than we need to close that loophole. You might think it's not possible to have a middling opinion, but I do think that's fair and unfair at the same time and it is why I've stated I do think the loopholes in those scenarios need to be closed.
> 
> Instead of intentionally trying to bait with nonsensical scenarios let's use real numbers, though. The average person making $10 million dollars paid just over $2 million in taxes in 2016. I believe that's incredibly fair. Which is what I was responding to in Miss Sally's post. If you don't think 2 mill is fair, that's why I said from the beginning I didn't want to talk about fair shares with you.


you keep contradicting yourself, you just said you think $250,000 tax on 10 million would be fair. 

You also said before that 2 million was not fair because you quoted

_*The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.

In other words, the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Which small percentile of tax payers also paid 3 percent or more? You might have guessed it. It is the top 0.001%, or about 1,400 taxpayers. That group alone paid 3.25 percent of all income taxes. In 2001, the bottom 50 percent paid nearly 5 percent whereas the top 0.001 percent of filers paid 2.3 percent of income taxes.
*_

So make up your mind.





dele said:


> 37% is nothing. It's a large amount of money when you get to people who are worth billions of dollars, yes. Compared to the money that they keep, the benefit that they get from paying such a low tax (relatively) is enormous. If you taxed the $10,000,000 yearly income bracket and above at 55% they would complain and threaten to take their ball home a la Atlas Shrugged, but they wouldn't.
> 
> As a person who formerly worked in Anti Money Laundering, what would be even better would be to enforce the AML/tax evasion laws on the books with regards to the super rich. I'd bet that 37% would jump pretty quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a whatabout. Yes, middle class Americans make more than the average person on on the planet. While $40k/ year is a lot of money to them, it's a relatively small amount if you live in America. Comparing the mindset of a person who makes $40,000 a year with the mindset of someone who makes $20+ million per year is asinine. Fucking troll harder.


LOL he still does not realize I have him on ignore. Also he still does not understand marginal tax rate and how that 70% marginal tax rate is only on every dollar over 10 million.

Hell if someone wants to pay me 12 million per year, I would gladly give 70% of every dollar over 10 million to the poor. Id give 90%.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



dele said:


> This is a whatabout. Yes, middle class Americans make more than the average person on on the planet. While $40k/ year is a lot of money to them, it's a relatively small amount if you live in America. Comparing the mindset of a person who makes $40,000 a year with the mindset of someone who makes $20+ million per year is asinine. Fucking troll harder.


if you donated $40k right now to any number of charity organizations that specialize in feeding the poor from other countries, it would be enough to feed 1000 people for about 4-5 years.

why should a middle class american be entitled to a house, a car and all the other amenities when there are people with nothing? explain yourself.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> you keep contradicting yourself, you just said you think $250,000 tax on 10 million would be fair.
> 
> You also said before that 2 million was not fair because you quoted
> 
> _*The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
> 
> The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.
> 
> In other words, the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Which small percentile of tax payers also paid 3 percent or more? You might have guessed it. It is the top 0.001%, or about 1,400 taxpayers. That group alone paid 3.25 percent of all income taxes. In 2001, the bottom 50 percent paid nearly 5 percent whereas the top 0.001 percent of filers paid 2.3 percent of income taxes.
> *_
> 
> So make up your mind.


What on Earth are you talking about? Those figures you quoted are the legit numbers the top 1-50% paid in taxes. Which I only used to say to Miss Sally that they definitely paid more than little to no taxes. I never said anything about fair or unfair. You brought that up in your reply, which I never wanted to discuss with you. I never said paying $2 million was unfair. I said because they paid $2 million, they definitely paid taxes. I'll say right now, there's no way $2 million isn't fair. That's way more than your imaginary $250,000 figure.

The $250,000 figure is a nonsense number so I honestly don't even really want to talk about it anymore because it's not happening, but I said repeatedly if that did happen, close the loophole. I won't say it's unfair because I pay way less than that, but if they should be paying more (like $2 million more), close the loophole and make them pay more. I told you from the very beginning life is more complicated than have a simple yes or no answer.

I really don't think there's anything further needed to be said here. My response to Miss Sally was never about fair shares, just that the wealthiest of American definitely pay taxes. And after you forced a conversation on fair share, I'd say $2 million the average person making $10 million or more is fair. So there you go. Maybe you think they should pay more for it to be fair, but we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> What on Earth are you talking about? Those figures you quoted are the legit numbers the top 1-50% paid in taxes. Which I only used to say to Miss Sally that they definitely paid more than little to no taxes. I never said anything about fair or unfair. You brought that up in your reply, which I never wanted to discuss with you. I never said paying $2 million was unfair. I said because they paid $2 million, they definitely paid taxes. I'll say right now, there's no way $2 million isn't fair. That's way more than your imaginary $250,000 figure.
> 
> The $250,000 figure is a nonsense number so I honestly don't even really want to talk about it anymore because it's not happening, but I said repeatedly if that did happen, close the loophole. I won't say it's unfair because I pay way less than that, but if they should be paying more (like $2 million more), close the loophole and make them pay more. I told you from the very beginning life is more complicated than have a simple yes or no answer.
> 
> I really don't think there's anything further needed to be said here. My response to Miss Sally was never about fair shares, just that the wealthiest of American definitely pay taxes. And after you forced a conversation on fair share, I'd say $2 million the average person making $10 million or more is fair. So there you go. Maybe you think they should pay more for it to be fair, but we'll have to agree to disagree.


This is what happens when you deflect direct questions that warranted a yes or no answer and instead want the person to infer what you were saying then you turn around and claim you never said what they inferred. 
That is why I pushed for a yes or no answer. Next time if someone asks you a yes or no question, answer yes or not, then you say anything you want after that.


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> This is what happens when you deflect direct questions that warranted a yes or no answer and instead want the person to infer what you were saying then you turn around and claim you never said what they inferred.
> That is why I pushed for a yes or no answer. Next time if someone asks you a yes or no question, answer yes or not, then you say anything you want after that.


Fair enough.

FYI I hate that we clash in this thread so much because you seem like a super chill dude outside it: Spider-Man, Resident Evil 2, New England Patriots. All GOAT.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sylar said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> FYI I hate that we clash in this thread so much because you seem like a super chill dude outside it: Spider-Man, Resident Evil 2, New England Patriots. All GOAT.


 That’s why they say don’t talk politics or religion. It just causes trouble lol Trump and political thread always gets people worked up. You should have seen the gun mass shooting threads Lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Sylar said:


> The original post said they paid little to no taxes. It's just a false statement.
> 
> What constitutes their fair share is a different conversation, but if you don't think the top 1% paying more than a third of all taxes taken in is fair, then you and I won't agree on what's considered a fair share.
> 
> Perhaps they could pay some more, but to say they aren't paying their fair share would be disingenuous in my opinion.


I'm mostly talking about large corporations not paying much taxes, there are plenty of rich people who use tax loopholes to get out of paying.

Reading over my post I thought I had added Corporations in that sentence, I did not!


----------



## Aincrad

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Rich people and corporations gobble up most of the money growth, ergo they can afford to pay the most taxes. If you want to spread the tax fairness around, then maybe stop trying to stomp out all forms of wage growth and worker rights.

Is this thread just for Americans or can I complain about how pitiful the state of Canadian political leadership is right now?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Aincrad said:


> Is this thread just for Americans or can I complain about how pitiful the state of Canadian political leadership is right now?


Sure go ahead


----------



## Deathstroke

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Aincrad said:


> Is this thread just for Americans or can I complain about how pitiful the state of Canadian political leadership is right now?


I don't see why not. Go for it.


----------



## Aincrad

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*

Aight, let's try this again

>Canada
>Federal Election in Fall 2019 (campaigning will only be for a few months)
>Trudeau/Liberals just got caught trying to pressure their own attorney general into dropping international bribery charges for a Quebec corporation (damaging to Trudeau's personal brand too, she's a Native American and Trudeau's branded himself as a Feminist and pro-Reconciliation)
>Scheer of the Conservative Party is a sock-puppet with no charisma or presence and doesn't come off as highly intelligent enough, entirely there just to keep the seat warm for the following leadership race and not lose seats so the actual serious candidates can run next time
>The blue-collar/union/pseudo-socialist/probably-closer-to-social-democracy-these-days chose Jagmeet Singh, a rich brown man who wears $5k suits, to try to steal back votes from the Liberals primarily because "it'll feel good to vote for a non-white because the Liberals are mostly doing everything we'd want to do anyways"
>Maxime Bernier of the People's Party of Canada (despite the name, it's right wing) is a Libertarian who wants to defund health care and turn us into Americans
>Greens are kind of just there because the NDP and Liberals have already embraced environmentalism
>I'm not Quebecois so The Bloc is meaningless to me (even if I was, French separatism is currently dead)

I don't particularly believe that staying home on election day because there's no good choices is a good way to exercise your political power, but _god-damn_ they're not making this easy


----------



## 777

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Aincrad said:


> Aight, let's try this again
> 
> >Canada
> >Federal Election in Fall 2019 (campaigning will only be for a few months)
> >Trudeau/Liberals just got caught trying to pressure their own attorney general into dropping international bribery charges for a Quebec corporation (damaging to Trudeau's personal brand too, she's a Native American and Trudeau's branded himself as a Feminist and pro-Reconciliation)
> >Scheer of the Conservative Party is a sock-puppet with no charisma or presence and doesn't come off as highly intelligent enough, entirely there just to keep the seat warm for the following leadership race and not lose seats so the actual serious candidates can run next time
> >The blue-collar/union/pseudo-socialist/probably-closer-to-social-democracy-these-days chose Jagmeet Singh, a rich brown man who wears $5k suits, to try to steal back votes from the Liberals primarily because "it'll feel good to vote for a non-white because the Liberals are mostly doing everything we'd want to do anyways"
> >Maxime Bernier of the People's Party of Canada (despite the name, it's right wing) is a Libertarian who wants to defund health care and turn us into Americans
> >Greens are kind of just there because the NDP and Liberals have already embraced environmentalism
> >I'm not Quebecois so The Bloc is meaningless to me (even if I was, French separatism is currently dead)
> 
> I don't particularly believe that staying home on election day because there's no good choices is a good way to exercise your political power, but _god-damn_ they're not making this easy


The general consensus I get from people is that they're not particularly keen on re-electing Trudeau, however, without any viable alternatives we might be stuck for another term...least he legalized weed so he does have at least a little good will from me.


----------



## Aincrad

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



777 said:


> The general consensus I get from people is that they're not particularly keen on re-electing Trudeau, however, without any viable alternatives we might be stuck for another term...least he legalized weed so he does have at least a little good will from me.


Yeah, if the NDP had strong leadership I'd probably vote for them, or maybe even the Conservatives if I thought well of the leader even though I've never voted for them (I think it was a major, major mistake for the CPC to not let Rona Ambrose run because she seemed like the perfect foil to Justin Trudeau). I've never trusted the Cons because it feels like they want to make us more American, but a good Conservative PM by the end of their term is usually suffering right wing discontentment because they're "too Liberal" so I'm not sure it makes a huge difference.


----------



## 777

I like the NDP in principle, but can't stand their carefree approach to spending. Where is the 'reasonable people' party?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

these last few pages in a nutshell:



*bernie stan:* "we need to raise taxes on the rich and wealthy! it's not fair that they get to acquire more wealth than 90% of the country!"


*challenger*: "the average american owns more wealth than 90% of humanity all around the globe, why don't we redistribute your wealth too?"


*bernie stan*:











^ you know who you are.


----------



## Aincrad

TBH the spending thing isn't really a big deal to me. No one spends an exorbitant amount these days that blows the budget out of whack. The Liberals are fairly free-spending and our federal debt-to-GDP rose by 0.1% this year I think? Provincial debt is where that kind of issue currently is, and only for select areas of the country.

Whoever pledges to kick China out of Canada may just get my vote at this point.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> *challenger*: "the average american owns more wealth than 90% of humanity all around the globe, why don't we redistribute your wealth too?"
> 
> 
> *bernie stan*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ you know who you are.


Tax money gets allocated to do that already, this is a nothing point.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Aincrad said:


> *Tax money gets allocated to do that already*, this is a nothing point.


And the top 1% already pays the majority of taxes...


----------



## 777

Aincrad said:


> TBH the spending thing isn't really a big deal to me. No one spends an exorbitant amount these days that blows the budget out of whack. The Liberals are fairly free-spending and our federal debt-to-GDP rose by 0.1% this year I think? Provincial debt is where that kind of issue currently is, and only for select areas of the country.
> 
> Whoever pledges to kick China out of Canada may just get my vote at this point.


Where the system works in the prov petitioning the fed for funds, I've watched NDP build new schools and hospitals in towns with rapidly evaporating populations in order to justify next year's larger cash grab. It's wasteful, mind you the other parties do it too.

On China...good fucking luck. Nearly every politician is making money in real estate somehow.


----------



## Aincrad

Berzerker's Beard said:


> And the top 1% already pays the majority of taxes...


They also gobble up the majority of the money-growth. Again if you want tax fairness, stop hoarding so much money at the top.



777 said:


> Where the system works in the prov petitioning the fed for funds, I've watched NDP build new schools and hospitals in towns with rapidly evaporating populations in order to justify next year's larger cash grab. It's wasteful, mind you the other parties do it too.


Depends on the specifics I guess. Not everyone can or should be living in the cities.



> On China...good fucking luck. Nearly every politician is making money in real estate somehow.


I think it's like Trump, eventually someone new is going to come along and start saying things that regular people want to hear (Mad Max is not it).


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Aincrad said:


> They also gobble up the majority of the money-growth. Again if you want tax fairness, stop hoarding so much money at the top.


so again even though they are already paying the majority of our taxes, you don't think it's enough. you want them to pay *more*. solely on the basis that you think they have too much.

you are probably richer than 80-90% of the entire planet. you maintain a lifestyle that they can only dream of. so again i ask... why shouldn't YOU pay more? why should YOU get to have so much? 

please don't run away from this question.


----------



## Aincrad

Berzerker's Beard said:


> so again even though they are already paying the majority of our taxes, you don't think it's enough. you want them to pay *more*. solely on the basis that you think they have too much.


They have more than enough that being taxed won't significantly affect their quality of life. 

Also they also gobble up the majority of the wage growth. Inflation makes your money worth less than it did before. Spread that growth around and then taxing everyone fairly isn't much of a problem.



> you are probably richer than 80-90% of the entire planet. you maintain a lifestyle that they can only dream of. so again i ask... why shouldn't YOU pay more? why should YOU get to have so much?
> 
> please don't run away from this question.


If nations didn't have borders, that might be a point.

But also tax money does get sent out as foreign aid in the fight for poverty, so again, a nothing point. That's wealth distribution, and somewhat limited because a lot of third-world shitholes are undemocratic kleptocracies so it's hard to actually put the money in the hands of people who need it.

I'm not running away from the question, you're just running away from the validity of the answer.


----------



## 777

Aincrad said:


> Depends on the specifics I guess. Not everyone can or should be living in the cities.


OK. A school built built by Bob Rae as prov NDP in a town following the closure of one of several mines. A bigger better school that houses twice as many students for which everyone claps and cheers like its some wonderful charity by these elites. Soon after another mine closes, it's not like they didn't know the closures were coming either, the town's population drops in half. The school is half empty.
20 years and several mine shut downs later, they use only a handful of classrooms in a beautiful building. The town is at a quarter of it's peak population. 

In fairness, the town needed a new school. But there was no foresight in the planning whatsoever.

Meanwhile on the coast, in a different mining town in Labrador, the school desperately needs repaired or replaced, it's crawling with black mold, affecting peoples health, kids getting shipped to the high school for usable classrooms...and the province doesn't give a flying fuck about anything that happens outside of St. John's.

At this point I generally just vote people out if I can.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Aincrad said:


> *They have more than enough that being taxed won't significantly affect their quality of life. *
> 
> Also they also gobble up the majority of the wage growth. Inflation makes your money worth less than it did before. Spread that growth around and then taxing everyone fairly isn't much of a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> If nations didn't have borders, that might be a point.
> 
> But also tax money does get sent out as foreign aid in the fight for poverty, so again, a nothing point. That's wealth distribution, and somewhat limited because a lot of third-world shitholes are undemocratic kleptocracies so it's hard to actually put the money in the hands of people who need it.
> 
> I'm not running away from the question, you're just running away from the validity of the answer.


and there you have it, the crux of your entire argument. it's pure envy, nothing else.

with all due respect who the hell are YOU to tell anyone else how they should define their quality of life? what's the problem do they have too many houses for your liking? do they take too many vacations? 

you live the life of a god damn KING compared to the rest of humanity. how much money do YOU waste on frivolous nonsense? what if the rest of the world who's starving demanded that YOU lead too gluttonous of a lifestyle and should be taxed more?

how dare you spend so much money on nike sneakers, movie tickets, videogames, restaurants... and god knows what other useless bullshit you can live without. there are people starving! you have more than enough!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

So, if A Christmas Carol was written today, to some, would Ebenzer Scrooge be the hero and the ghosts just commie assholes?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

2 Ton 21 said:


> So, if A Christmas Carol was written today, to some, would Ebenzer Scrooge be the hero and the ghosts just commie assholes?


compared to the rest of the world, the average american IS scrooge.


----------



## Aincrad

777 said:


> OK. A school built built by Bob Rae as prov NDP in a town following the closure of one of several mines. A bigger better school that houses twice as many students for which everyone claps and cheers like its some wonderful charity by these elites. Soon after another mine closes, it's not like they didn't know the closures were coming either, the town's population drops in half. The school is half empty.
> 20 years and several mine shut downs later, they use only a handful of classrooms in a beautiful building. The town is at a quarter of it's peak population.
> 
> In fairness, the town needed a new school. But there was no foresight in the planning whatsoever.
> 
> Meanwhile on the coast, in a different mining town in Labrador, the school desperately needs repaired or replaced, it's crawling with black mold, affecting peoples health, kids getting shipped to the high school for usable classrooms...and the province doesn't give a flying fuck about anything that happens outside of St. John's.
> 
> At this point I generally just vote people out if I can.


Okay I see what you mean now. Yeah, I'm all for sane planning.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> and there you have it, the crux of your entire argument. it's pure envy, nothing else.
> 
> with all due respect who the hell are YOU to tell anyone else how they should define their quality of life? what's the problem do they have too many houses for your liking? do they take too many vacations?


They're still going to have those things at the end of the day, just a little less of them so that people on the bottom have more of a chance.



> you live the life of a god damn KING compared to the rest of humanity.


And we have borders



> how much money do YOU waste on frivolous nonsense?


I'd like them to be able to buy frivolous nonsense too, but they live in undemocratic and kleptocratic shitholes, so what can you do?



> what if the rest of the world who's starving demanded that YOU lead too gluttonous of a lifestyle and should be taxed more?


I think for the third or fourth time, you'd have a point if borders didn't exist, but they do.



> how dare you spend so much money on nike sneakers, movie tickets, videogames, restaurants... and god knows what other useless bullshit you can live without. there are people starving! you have more than enough!


And you'd have a point if *borders* didn't exist. Bolded part for emphasis, try googling what they mean.

And we (as in the rich countries) already send tax money to them to try and help with their poverty issues. Reeing that the rich pay most of the tax doesn't discount that regular people's taxes are heading out of their various countries to help too.

We (as in the west) also allow our corporations to offshore to them so they can pay workers cents per hour, all so the profits of rich people can increase.

The wealthy aren't sympathetic figures having unfair burdens placed on them, they're resource hoarding at the expense of the world around them and justifying it by beating their chests about fairness while they can afford to pay off people to lobby for unfair policies.

TBH you sound like an entitled rich kid who thinks the rest of us poor folk should be holding you up on the pedestal.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Aincrad said:


> And you'd have a point if *borders* didn't exist. Bolded part for emphasis, try googling what they mean.
> 
> And we (as in the rich countries) already send tax money to them to try and help with their poverty issues. Reeing that the rich pay most of the tax doesn't discount that regular people's taxes are heading out of their various countries to help too.
> 
> We (as in the west) also allow our corporations to offshore to them so they can pay workers cents per hour, all so the profits of rich people can increase.
> 
> The wealthy aren't sympathetic figures having unfair burdens placed on them, they're resource hoarding at the expense of the world around them and justifying it by beating their chests about fairness while they can afford to pay off people to lobby for unfair policies.
> 
> TBH you sound like an entitled rich kid who thinks the rest of us poor folk should be holding you up on the pedestal.


gtfo i grew up in a single parent household on welfare. my mother worked two jobs and busted her ass so me and my brother could have a chance. everything i have in life is because i earned it. i make more money than the average american but i also live in NY so my money doesn't go nearly as far. i am an ordinary middle class citizen.

rich people already pay the majority of our taxes. you have provided no logical reason as to why they should be expected to pay more. 

there are people around the world that would think YOU have too much and that YOU are hoarding too many resources. wealth is relative. the key to happiness is not to stew over what other people have. you need to be grateful for what YOU have.

by virtue of being born in the U.S. you are already living like a king compared to most other people. the average detached home in america would feel like a fucking palace for poor people living in other countries. 

if you can't be grateful for that then YOU are the problem.


----------



## Aincrad

Berzerker's Beard said:


> gtfo i grew up in a single parent household on welfare.


The irony.



> [my mother worked two jobs and busted her ass so me and my brother could have a chance.


And apparently took welfare too. I wonder where that comes from?



> everything i have in life is because i earned it.


Except in childhood, when tax money was given to you help you make ends meet? Should've taxed your mom more because it's fairer.



> i make more money than the average american but i also live in NY so my money doesn't go nearly as far. i am an ordinary middle class citizen.
> 
> rich people already pay the majority of our taxes. you have provided no logical reason as to why they should be expected to pay more.


Besides the fact that most of the wage growth is concentrated on them while inflation makes your money worth less?

It's really clear that you're not reading at all, just railing on to rail on.



> there are people around the world that would think YOU have too much and that YOU are hoarding too many resources. wealth is relative. the key to happiness is not to stew over what other people have. you need to be grateful for what YOU have.


Borders borders borders borders borders foreign aid foreign aid foreign aid foreign aid etc



> by virtue of being born in the U.S. you are already living like a king compared to most other people. the average detached home in america would feel like a fucking palace for poor people living in other countries.


I'm actually not American, good job on the reading thing. I'm only making the generalized argument because I'd like see it occur more in Canada (or at least more in the sense of taxing wealth-hoarding corporations somehow, we're probably fine with taxing the rich at this point because we're a middle-class society at best, most of our rich hang out in America quite a bit). I think a bit of wealth redistribution wouldn't hurt America, but I don't really care if you guys ever implement it at all because I don't live there (thank god) and I don't vote in those elections (thank god again)



> if you can't be grateful for that then YOU are the problem.


It has nothing to do with being grateful, and everything to do with maintaining infrastructure and raising the quality of life for everyone. The wealthy already have an extremely high quality of life, it's not going to diminish all that much from having less.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Berzerker's Beard said:


> compared to the rest of the world, the average american IS scrooge.


So, who does get to complain? Say there's two guys in a third world country. One has a lean-to shelter and drinks water with his hands. The other has a mud hut and a pouch to keep water in. Does the guy with the water pouch and mud hut need to just appreciate what he has and not complain because at least he's not the guy in the lean-to, drinking water with his hands?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

2 Ton 21 said:


> So, who does get to complain? Say there's two guys in a third world country. One has a lean-to shelter and drinks water with his hands. The other has a mud hut and a pouch to keep water in. Does the guy with the water pouch and mud hut need to just appreciate what he has and not complain because at least he's not the guy in the lean-to, drinking water with his hands?


complaining has never solved anything, ever. instead of complaining about what you don't have you are far better served using that energy to work towards your achieving your desired outcome.

the guy with the mud hut obviously dedicated the time and the effort to build it. he went the extra mile so that he would have his own shelter. 

why can't the other guy build his own as well?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Berzerker's Beard said:


> *complaining has never solved anything, ever.* instead of complaining about what you don't have you are far better served using that energy to work towards your achieving your desired outcome.
> 
> the guy with the mud hut obviously dedicated the time and the effort to build it. he went the extra mile so that he would have his own shelter.
> 
> why can't the other guy build his own as well?


I'm saying that by your logic as long as there is someone, somewhere in the world worse off than you, your situation is just fine and stop being upset about it. And you seem to be saying, if you have the worst life in the world, well fuck you should have tried harder. A billionaire can be upset about paying too high taxes while still staying a billionaire, but a guy literally without a pot to piss in should just shut the fuck up about it.

Also, if complaining is pointless, why do you do so much of it on here about politics you disagree with?


----------



## Kabraxal

2 Ton 21 said:


> So, who does get to complain? Say there's two guys in a third world country. One has a lean-to shelter and drinks water with his hands. The other has a mud hut and a pouch to keep water in. Does the guy with the water pouch and mud hut need to just appreciate what he has and not complain because at least he's not the guy in the lean-to, drinking water with his hands?


The real question is why should I personally worry about those two men? If I worried about every tragic living condition in this world, that would be billions weighing on me. No one can truly care about billions of people. They would go insane,


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Kabraxal said:


> The real question is why should I personally worry about those two men? If I worried about every tragic living condition in this world, that would be billions weighing on me. No one can truly care about billions of people. They would go insane,


I'm not saying you have to. BB was making the point that being poor in America is better than being poor in Africa. That's' true, but better than doesn't automatically mean good.


----------



## Aincrad

Also you as an American voter can actually affect what goes on in America with your fellow countrymen. Borders exist for a reason.

You have little control over a third-world shithole countries like many countries in Africa, including who gets their hands on relief money western societies do already try to send them to alleviate poverty and help dig themselves out that rut.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

2 Ton 21 said:


> I'm saying that by your logic as long as there is someone, somewhere in the world worse off than you, your situation is just fine and stop being upset about it. And you seem to be saying, if you have the worst life in the world, well fuck you should have tried harder. A billionaire can be upset about paying too high taxes while still staying a billionaire, but a guy literally without a pot to piss in should just shut the fuck up about it.
> 
> Also, if complaining is pointless, why do you do so much of it on here about politics you disagree with?


it's called survival of the fittest. in any species the least strong, least cunning and least resourceful... and the least lucky... are going to have a harder time getting by than others. it's a reality of nature we all have to accept. you have working internet so i can only assume you were born more privileged than most people living on this planet. you should take note of that.

i am not complaining about anyone's politics, i am questioning people's politics. this is a discussion forum. when people propose arguments and declarations, i have the freedom to challenge them. if you aren't comfortable having your beliefs challenged then you shouldn't be broadcasting your opinions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

In the current system its just an illusion that American voters can affect what goes on in America.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Aincrad said:


> Also you as an American voter can actually affect what goes on in America with your fellow countrymen. Borders exist for a reason.
> 
> You have little control over a third-world shithole countries like many countries in Africa, including who gets their hands on relief money western societies do already try to send them to alleviate poverty and help dig themselves out that rut.


so i'm just curious... what percentage of YOUR income last year did you donate to the needy and less fortunate? not including taxes.

5%? 10%? 25%?


----------



## Aincrad

Berzerker's Beard said:


> it's called survival of the fittest


You grew up on welfare, you didn't survive because you were the fittest.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> so i'm just curious... what percentage of YOUR income last year did you donate to the needy and less fortunate? not including taxes.
> 
> 5%? 10%? 25%?


0%. Tax money and social safety nets already accomplish that a lot better than handing out band-aids so I can self back-pat at how charitable I am.

Also I don't want money I give freely to possibly end up in the hands of people I don't like or agree with. Tax money, it just goes into various pools and who knows where individual dollars end up, and if they screw up with it I can just fire them with my vote.


----------



## ShaWWE

Honestly, a lot of middle-class people in America are going to be screwed. They will be wiped out & there won't be any middle ground anymore. It will simply be the rich & the poor.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Aincrad said:


> You grew up on welfare, you didn't survive because you were the fittest.


my mother was on welfare for about 2-3 years. you aren't supposed to make a career out of it. by the time she was off of it i was 8 years old.

so kindly watch what you say.


----------



## Aincrad

Berzerker's Beard said:


> my mother was on welfare for about 2-3 years. you aren't supposed to make a career out of it. by the time she was off of it i was 8 years old.
> 
> so kindly watch what you say.


And if she wasn't on it for those 2-3 years, you could be easily and royally fucked. She could get hooked on drugs, abandon you, sell you or anything else.

Your mom was dumb enough to have a kid with a guy who doesn't stick around? Who cares, survival of the fittest. Your mom married a guy who passed away and now she's in trouble? Who cares, survival of the fittest. And on and on.

The point of funding social safety nets with tax money is so people like you can actually have an honest shot, and it looks like those 2-3 years provided enough social assistance that it helped her and in turn helped you. It works as its supposed to without some stupid chest-beating "survival of the fittest" mantra.

Taxes have to be collected and most of the money growth is flowing upwards to the wealthy. They have the most money and the least to lose by being taxed for it. They'll still live fantastically luxurious lives even if high percentages of their money is taxed. They get most of their tax breaks through flawed ideology based on a metaphor that if fat slobs eat enough, eventually their crumbs will trickle down to the animals below, or the idea that most of them aren't actually patriots, they'll just up and leave if they don't get what they want. 

If you want fairness in taxes, then get some of that money flowing downward. The wealthy still live luxurious lives, they have less money but also pay less taxes because the tax burden of the lower classes can be shouldered because they have more money to pay more tax but still most live the kind of lives they want. The rich would rather offshore and import people from third world shitholes to depress wages to boost their own profit margins instead. If they want to play dirty, then it's fine if the underclasses want to throw them under the bus too.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

the. wealthiest. people. already. pay. the. majority. of. our. taxes.


----------



## CamillePunk

Aincrad said:


> And if she wasn't on it for those 2-3 years, you could be easily and royally fucked. She could get hooked on drugs, abandon you, sell you or anything else.
> 
> Your mom was dumb enough to have a kid with a guy who doesn't stick around? Who cares, survival of the fittest. Your mom married a guy who passed away and now she's in trouble? Who cares, survival of the fittest. And on and on.
> 
> The point of funding social safety nets with tax money is so people like you can actually have an honest shot, and it looks like those 2-3 years provided enough social assistance that it helped her and in turn helped you. It works as its supposed to without some stupid chest-beating "survival of the fittest" mantra.
> 
> Taxes have to be collected and most of the money growth is flowing upwards to the wealthy. They have the most money and the least to lose by being taxed for it. They'll still live fantastically luxurious lives even if high percentages of their money is taxed. They get most of their tax breaks through flawed ideology based on a metaphor that if fat slobs eat enough, eventually their crumbs will trickle down to the animals below, or the idea that most of them aren't actually patriots, they'll just up and leave if they don't get what they want.
> 
> If you want fairness in taxes, then get some of that money flowing downward. The wealthy still live luxurious lives, they have less money but also pay less taxes because the tax burden of the lower classes can be shouldered because they have more money to pay more tax but still most live the kind of lives they want. The rich would rather offshore and import people from third world shitholes to depress wages to boost their own profit margins instead. If they want to play dirty, then it's fine if the underclasses want to throw them under the bus too.












Minimizing the role the government plays in suppressing the economy by implying people should be grateful for social welfare is such an uninformed and clueless position to take. There's nothing wrong or hypocritical in taking government assistance and advocating against the welfare state if you'd rather work or rely on charity (which is also suppressed by the welfare state, money wasted in bureaucracy is less money for charities). You live in the world that is, you argue for the world that ought to be.


----------



## Aincrad

Berzerker's Beard said:


> the. wealthiest. people. already. pay. the. majority. of. our. taxes.


They. Can. Pay. More. Because. Most. Of. The. Money. Growth. Is. Going. To. Them. Anyways.



CamillePunk said:


> There's nothing wrong or hypocritical in taking government assistance and advocating against the welfare state if you'd rather work or rely on charity


Welfare doesn't exist to stop you from working, it exists when you can't find support or a job. People who don't want to go on welfare and have the support system in place to help them often do utilize that instead.



> (which is also suppressed by the welfare state, money wasted in bureaucracy is less money for charities).


And those charities are more selective. Churches will only support this and that and won't support this or that, as one example. I prefer the non-discriminatory approach of government, even if some of it gets bogged down by the system and leechers. 

Also pretending like charities don't experience their own bureaucracy or for-profit motive is cute in itself. You have to be wearing optimism blinders for that one.


----------



## Reaper

Aincrad said:


> Also pretending like charities don't experience their own bureaucracy or for-profit motive is cute in itself. You have to be wearing optimism blinders for that one.


If charities were ever going to replace taxation it would have happened already. 

In fact, every single benefit that we have in society right now is a consequence of ensuring worker/labor rights through force. 

If you give capitalists free reign, they create the industrialization era british nightmare with children dying of hunger, malnutrition and a society of fat cats. Orphanages everywhere and people literally dying in the streets. People like Berzerker would be in an orphanage somewhere trying to fight for survival. In Pakistan they call them street rats because there is neither a government nor a system of charity in place that cares about their existence. 

In any case, the very idea of private ownership is questionable when it comes to the current system. The reason why the ancap bullshit fails is that it assumes that those who "rent" capital from others actually "own" it. 

The entire ancap movement simply ignores how capital is shared and not owned and then advocating for private tyranny. 

Essentially, if you simplify and extrapolate, my money in my bank is being loaned out to some fat cat who is using that money to build something and claim it as his own and then demanding that we simply ignore the fact that at most he owns 30-40% of anything (in some cases the debt equity ratio is even less than that). He wants all the profit but none of the labor and pro-capitalists simply give it to him like the pathetic serfs they are while also not even fighting for the right to demand more because according to these people every contract is based on complete fairness already. Imagine if every single individual had the power to stop any bank from forcibly loaning their money to capitalists. Yes, it's really that simply to take down the entire capitalist machine. We have no right to demand that our money isn't loaned out to someone else and then they pretend that we have that power. 

There is a reason why they want us to go completely cashless and newsflash it has nothing to do with black market economics. It's because the bankers and rulers want every single penny in the world to be under their *absolute* control. It's about concentrating the entire power of money in their hands. 

Then they want us to ignore inheritance and nepotism and the problems that it creates. Then they want to ignore the fact that the logical conclusion to any capitalist system *is* the very creation of the government they think *shouldn't* exists at all which is a really backward ass idea as well. There's a complete break from reality and how it works with these "philosophies". 

They then also assume or simply deny the existence of an exploitative environment between those who hold power and those who don't. It's completely backward ass thinking here. They go out and actively vote and talk against their own interests. Someone has to stop them from spreading their cancerous ideologies that we *know* based on the failure of feudalism have *already* failed. Finally adding on more craziness to their ideas, they then resort to claiming "well there has never been a society without a government so how do you know" ... Of course, because a capitalist system without a group of controllers cannot exist, not that it isn't allowed to exist. The hierarchy based on resources creates itself and cannot be uncreated.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Aincrad said:


> They. Can. Pay. More. Because. Most. Of. The. Money. Growth. Is. Going. To. Them. Anyways.


The rich already pay over 70% of all taxes in the USA. What would be the incentive for the rich to stay if they were going to get taxed say 70%? Look at what Governor Cuomo said just the other week "I don't believe raising taxes on the rich" "That would be the worst thing to do. You would just expand the shortfall. God forbid if the rich leave.". In fact, the rich are already leaving New York with 61.5% of people moving, left the state with 41% of those leaving were in the 1%. Also, what makes you truly believe that raising the taxes on the rich, wont impact the middle and lower classes ? Because the government has always been so nice and refuses to take money? :lol . 

This disdained people have for the 1% is so ridiculous. To actually believe that rich people are selfish for "hoarding" money, while simultaneously believing that they "deserve" money off other peoples work, is the very definition of hypocrisy . And I don't even care about the 1% but my goodness people have ridiculous views of people who make more money than other people.


----------



## CamillePunk

Aincrad said:


> Welfare doesn't exist to stop you from working, it exists when you can't find support or a job. People who don't want to go on welfare and have the support system in place to help them often do utilize that instead.
> 
> And those charities are more selective. Churches will only support this and that and won't support this or that, as one example. I prefer the non-discriminatory approach of government, even if some of it gets bogged down by the system and leechers.
> 
> Also pretending like charities don't experience their own bureaucracy or for-profit motive is cute in itself. You have to be wearing optimism blinders for that one.


I prefer discrimination when it comes to giving people money for nothing. You should absolutely be selective.






I guess center-left people are obsessed with AOC too. 8*D 

She's still gonna have a great political career even if she is a pretty uninformed gaffe machine. I stand by that.


----------



## 777

She doesn't seem to be giving anyone a choice in the matter.


----------



## virus21

The way see seems to be pissing in the water, she might end up committing "suicide" via shooting herself in the back of the head


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> The way see seems to be pissing in the water, she might end up committing "suicide" via shooting herself in the back of the head


Not quite. She's likely going to be bought not killed. Political assassination is too dirty now and it creates martyrs. 

They assassinate people now by outright lying. It's a much more effective death to kill someone while they're still alive. 

Take a look at what they're already doing to Tulsi while blatantly promoting black Hillary.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

Aincrad said:


> And those charities are more selective. Churches will only support this and that and won't support this or that, as one example. I prefer the non-discriminatory approach of government, even if some of it gets bogged down by the system and leechers.


Receiving funds for doing nothing should be under the utmost scrutiny.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Not quite. She's likely going to be bought not killed. Political assassination is too dirty now and it creates martyrs.
> 
> They assassinate people now by outright lying. It's a much more effective death to kill someone while they're still alive.
> 
> Take a look at what they're already doing to Tulsi while blatantly promoting black Hillary.


Black Hillary is the way to go, question her policies or her character and you either are a racist or a woman hater. :laugh:

It's the safest way to ensure the establishment stays in power. The "Justice Democrats" who cry out for progression and fairness will suddenly be sheepishly silent if Harris is elected. They know their place.

Everyone will be on notice. :x


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Black Hillary is the way to go, question her policies or her character and you either are a racist or a woman hater. :laugh:
> 
> It's the safest way to ensure the establishment stays in power. The "Justice Democrats" who cry out for progression and fairness will suddenly be sheepishly silent if Harris is elected. They know their place.
> 
> Everyone will be on notice. :x


Second para isn't true. But yeah I agree with everything else.

Establishment always wins. 

Always.



Headlouner said:


> Receiving funds for doing nothing should be under the utmost scrutiny.


If that's the case then 99% of capitalist fat cats don't deserve a single penny because they do nothing except win the birth lottery.

Why does scrutiny always be demanded for those who aren't already born rich?


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> ^ this is you shaming other people.


Nope. Subjective morality is subjective, if people are comfortable doing something and can justify it to themselves then they won't feel shame when I say its wrong. Try again, or don't, I'm fine either way.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

Reaper said:


> If that's the case then 99% of capitalist fat cats don't deserve a single penny because they do nothing except win the birth lottery.
> 
> Why does scrutiny always be demanded for those who aren't already born rich?


Life is not fair and never will be. Do you want everyone who is born conventionally attractive to be given artificial disadvantages? Do you want to cripple naturally athletic people to even out the playing field? You must offer a viable solution for our problems instead of doing this emotional grand standing. Anyone can yell that something sucks, but it takes a real brain to actually come up with something that doesn't lead to total disaster in a short time frame.


----------



## Reaper

Headlouner said:


> Life is not fair and never will be. Do you want everyone who is born conventionally attractive to be given artificial disadvantages? Do you want to cripple naturally athletic people to even out the playing field? You must offer a viable solution for our problems instead of doing this emotional grand standing. Anyone can yell that something sucks, but it takes a real brain to actually come up with something that doesn't lead to total disaster in a short time frame.


Where did I say that life is supposed to be fair? 

I simply said that this scrutiny of "prove your worth" and "hard work" and all that scrutiny related to labor and ethics seems to only apply to poor people and everyone that's just lucky gets to be exalted in western societies simply because they have wealth. 

I'm simply questioning why poor people tend to scrutinize other poor people and leave the wealthy who haven't lifted a finger all their lives do not have to prove that they deserved anything at all. It's the medieval nobility worship that seems to have continued its never ending evolution and hold over western serfs. Western serfs love their nobles because they believe that one day they could be a part of that nobility too imo. 

We assign value to wealth because the poor have to work hard so we simply also convince ourselves that *everyone* else is wealthy *also* deserves it. And then we go around rationalizing *why* *they* *deserve* it. 

It's all a series of rationalizations and projections. 

Even this argument that "life isn't supposed to be fair" is merely a rationalization. Post hoc BS. Who created this idea that's so pervasive without justification that life isn't supposed to be fair? There are plenty of societies already where life *is* fair for the majority and continues to show more and more progress towards more fairness. Why is it mainly western europe and the americas that continues to hold on to the idea that "life isn't fair"? 

Pretty sure in countries where people can choose to go to a hospital instead of choosing to die, they have achieved a higher level of fairness already than we have in the American dystopia. Anti-capitalism is not about 100% fairness. Never has been. It's about striving to achieve a level of fairness. You cannot have a land of opportunity without fairness anyways. It's impossible. 

FFS. We can't even wrap our heads around the fact anymore that capitalists don't own anything and the governments and banks collude to create the myth of scarcity while literally printing and creating money out of thin air where the rich fund each other till eventually we have economic crash after economic crash.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

Reaper said:


> Where did I say that life is supposed to be fair?
> 
> I simply said that this scrutiny of "prove your worth" and "hard work" and all that scrutiny related to labor and ethics seems to only apply to poor people and everyone that's just lucky gets to be exalted in western societies simply because they have wealth.
> 
> I'm simply questioning why poor people tend to scrutinize other poor people and leave the wealthy who haven't lifted a finger all their lives do not have to prove that they deserved anything at all. It's the medieval nobility worship that seems to have continued its never ending evolution and hold over western serfs. Western serfs love their nobles because they believe that one day they could be a part of that nobility too imo.
> 
> We assign value to wealth because the poor have to work hard so we simply also convince ourselves that *everyone* else is wealthy *also* deserves it. And then we go around rationalizing *why* *they* *deserve* it.
> 
> It's all a series of rationalizations and projections.
> 
> Even this argument that "life isn't supposed to be fair" is merely a rationalization. Post hoc BS. Who created this idea that's so pervasive without justification that life isn't supposed to be fair? There are plenty of societies already where life *is* fair for the majority and continues to show more and more progress towards more fairness. Why is it mainly western europe and the americas that continues to hold on to the idea that "life isn't fair"?
> 
> Pretty sure in countries where people can choose to go to a hospital instead of choosing to die, they have achieved a higher level of fairness already than we have in the American dystopia. Anti-capitalism is not about 100% fairness. Never has been. FFS. We can't even wrap our heads around the fact anymore that capitalists don't own anything and the governments and banks collude to create the myth of scarcity while literally printing and creating money out of thin air where the rich fund each other till eventually we have economic crash after economic crash.


Most of those countries (if not all) where people can walk into a hospital free of charge or pay minimal fees for post secondary education are allowed to exist as they currently are, due of the United States' "iron dome" over them.


----------



## Reaper

Headlouner said:


> Most of those countries (if not all) where people can walk into a hospital free of charge or pay minimal fees for post secondary education are allowed to exist as they currently are, due of the United States' "iron dome" over them.


Funny how our own iron dome is so ineffective in creating a utopia for ourselves but not for others. 

Pretty sure that has something to do with how submissive and unaware the local population is. It's a cultural / mindset issue that Americans have fewer benefits than those we are supposedly protecting. 

Their culture is better than ours then. And that's evident from just what I read on WF where we have a bunch of poor wannabe Paul Ryans


----------



## DesoloutionRow

Reaper said:


> Funny how our own iron dome is so ineffective in creating a utopia for ourselves but not for others.
> 
> Pretty sure that has something to do with how submissive and unaware the local population is. It's a cultural / mindset issue that Americans have fewer benefits than those we are supposedly protecting.
> 
> Their culture is better than ours then. And that's evident from just what I read on WF where we have a bunch of poor wannabe Paul Ryans


That may be, but perhaps a shift at home could spell disaster for elsewhere. It is something I have pondered for years.


----------



## Reaper

Headlouner said:


> That may be, but perhaps a shift at home could spell disaster for elsewhere. It is something I have pondered for years.


I don't see it. Care to elaborate? I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

Reaper said:


> I don't see it. Care to elaborate? I'm genuinely curious.


If the United States suddenly shifts to a more inwardly focused country, where they allocate their funds toward more social programs instead of their defense budget, a plausible scenario is a world where we see Russia and/or China beginning to annex nearby states or increasing their spheres of influence at a more aggressive pace. The question then comes down to whether or not the average United States citizen is okay with this on a moral and/or political level.


----------



## Reaper

Headlouner said:


> If the United States suddenly shifts to a more inwardly focused country, where they allocate their funds toward more social programs instead of their defense budget, a plausible scenario is a world where we see Russia and/or China beginning to annex nearby states or increasing their spheres of influence at a more aggressive pace. The question then comes down to whether or not the average United States citizen is okay with this on a moral and/or political level.


We have enough to do both if we run our government more efficiently. 

That's why I said that much of our perceptions around scarcity are artificially created.


----------



## Aincrad

America would be a major economy any way you slice it, but America can dictate trade rules because they guarantee sea lanes and have the military might to back things up. I think too many people assume America being #1 is the natural order of things rather than a thing that's carefully maintained (or sometimes blunderingly maintained). Power vacuums get filled pretty quickly and once they don't have to play by American economic rules anymore, it may be too late for America to reassert power. China in particular is positioning itself as the next world super-power and are already doing things to try to undercut America (such as having a hands-off trade policy that doesn't dictate social or democratic leanings, whereas America tries to enforce democratic and social standards or at least pro-America standards in trade partners to a certain degree), they'd be more than happy to slide right in.

I do think the military spending in America can be a bit ridiculous, but it's also justified in some ways. (And specifically from a Canadian point of view, we can afford to underspend on our military because America guarantees our borders by pretty much just being there. Even our Conservative Party cuts military spending)


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Always hate when someone says "well life isn't fair" when unfairness is pointed out. By the logic of it, no one should ever demand change.

"Hey white people can use that water fountain, but we black people can't. That's not fair." "Well life isn't fair"

"Men can vote, but we women can't. That's not fair." "Well life isn't fair."

"Landowners can vote, but we renters and sharecroppers can't. That's not fair" "Well life isn't fair."

"Hey people in England pay taxes to the crown and have representation in Parliament, but we in the Americas pay taxes to the crown and receive no representation. That's not fair." "Well life isn't fair."

Like it's just stupid of someone to want to be treated in a fair manner. Life isn't fair. Kids get cancer and bastards live long lives. If lighting strikes your house instead of your neighbors and you yell out "that's not fair, then it's perfectly appropriate to say "well life isn't fair".

When I point out unfairness I'm not talking about the randomness of life, I'm talking about a person/organization/corporation/government willfully treating people unfairly either out of apathy, dislike, or for their own benefit.

"Well life isn't fair" is just a more polite way to say "just shut up and take this ass fucking".


----------



## 777

Come back to the middle guys, we need both approaches, always have, always will.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

2 Ton 21 said:


> Always hate when someone says "well life isn't fair" when unfairness is pointed out. By the logic of it, no one should ever demand change.
> 
> "Hey white people can use that water fountain, but we black people can't. That's not fair." "Well life isn't fair"
> 
> "Men can vote, but we women can't. That's not fair." "Well life isn't fair."
> 
> "Landowners can vote, but we renters and sharecroppers can't. That's not fair" "Well life isn't fair."
> 
> "Hey people in England pay taxes to the crown and have representation in Parliament, but we in the Americas pay taxes to the crown and receive no representation. That's not fair." "Well life isn't fair."
> 
> Like it's just stupid of someone to want to be treated in a fair manner. Life isn't fair. Kids get cancer and bastards live long lives. If lighting strikes your house instead of your neighbors and you yell out "that's not fair, then it's perfectly appropriate to say "well life isn't fair".
> 
> When I point out unfairness I'm not talking about the randomness of life, I'm talking about a person/organization/corporation/government willfully treating people unfairly either out of apathy, dislike, or for their own benefit.
> 
> "Well life isn't fair" is just a more polite way to say "just shut up and take this ass fucking".


"That isn't fair" isn't a valid argument either. We need actual solutions, not some bullshit rhetoric. Like the poster above me said, come back to the middle.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Headlouner said:


> "That isn't fair" isn't a valid argument either. We need actual solutions, not some bullshit rhetoric. Like the poster above me said, come back to the middle.


The first step to solving any problem is pointing it out.

I am in the middle, but both sides have gone to such extremes that to one side I look like a conservative and to the other I look like a liberal.


----------



## 777

Fair enough, one can't seem to make an argument in either direction without being castigated by the other side any more.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

2 Ton 21 said:


> The first step to solving any problem is pointing it out.


I don't disagree with this. The problem is the second and third steps, which are seemingly bypassed (yet essential) by everyone in this day and age due to emotion. Is it actually a problem? And the third step, which is the most important of them all. Will our solution cause more pain than the initial problem?

It just seems like people like to point out "problems" and stand on their soap box and rally a bunch of emotional lame brains behind them, sometimes even successfully.


----------



## deepelemblues

Magnum721 said:


> Serious question: How do you think the U.S. should be involved with Venezuela if at all. Honest question


The United States has in my view struck a good balance on Venezuela policy between pushing for change and not preventing the socialists from grabbing all the rope needed to hang themselves. Venezuela is an important country and its degradation by socialists has been a massive detriment to its people and to both North and South America.


----------



## Magnum721

deepelemblues said:


> Magnum721 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Serious question: How do you think the U.S. should be involved with Venezuela if at all. Honest question
> 
> 
> 
> The United States has in my view struck a good balance on Venezuela policy between pushing for change and not preventing the socialists from grabbing all the rope needed to hang themselves. Venezuela is an important country and its degradation by socialists has been a massive detriment to its people and to both North and South America.
Click to expand...

Is there a Venezuela thread? And your point is duly noted, but what do you think we should do. Again just looking for your viewpoint here no salt intended.


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

Magnum721 said:


> Is there a Venezuela thread? And your point is duly noted, but what do you think we should do. Again just looking for your viewpoint here no salt intended.


There is somewhere

I think the current policy is fine. Assembling a large group of nations to adopt a united position is traditional US policy. As is refusing to take the option of force off the table. The government of Venezuela knows it can't do anything like unleash the colectivos and state security forces on the opposition. The government has all it can do to use the military to keep thousands from starving to death. How many thousands? A lot. The government knows if that there is widespread bloodshed or starvation then there will be some kind of intervention. The military knows it won't last a month if resists. 

The government of Venezuela is going to collapse sooner or later. There is no force on this earth that can change that. When it does, the only possibility of avoiding a lot of anarchy and death is the Western nations spending a lot of money to avoid it. Hands off Venezuela people don't get that a lot more people will die if the West isn't actively involved.


----------



## Draykorinee

Labour imploding, Corbyn was my great hope and he's been a disaster. People always say but he nearly beat May, yeah, he nearly beat the WORST PM and the worst run campaign in generations, a campaign run on a vote to bringing back fox hunting and dismantle pensions ffs.

I'm not convinced that the new group is not just a centrist party which i have zero interest in but I can see them making a new party even if they say they won't.

Its time for Corbyn to go.

The left are so poorly represented.


----------



## Metalhead1

I guess I'll post this here since I don't see a separate thread for it, but does anybody notice that Sean Hannity always excessively uses his hands when he talks, just flailing them all over the place. It's kinda funny; looks like he is trying to land a plane or hail a taxi.


----------



## Aincrad

Metalhead1 said:


> I guess I'll post this here since I don't see a separate thread for it, but does anybody notice that Sean Hannity always excessively uses his hands when he talks, just flailing them all over the place. It's kinda funny; looks like he is trying to land a plane or hail a taxi.


Gesticulating makes you a more effective public speaker, and people are more likely to remember what you say.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

Draykorinee said:


> Labour imploding, Corbyn was my great hope and he's been a disaster. People always say but he nearly beat May, yeah, he nearly beat the WORST PM and the worst run campaign in generations, a campaign run on a vote to bringing back fox hunting and dismantle pensions ffs.
> 
> I'm not convinced that the new group is not just a centrist party which i have zero interest in but I can see them making a new party even if they say they won't.
> 
> Its time for Corbyn to go.
> 
> The left are so poorly represented.


The Labour party was pathetic before Corbyn got into power, more of the same austerity, Conservative-light policies were ridiculous. Corbyn has introduced, much needed, genuine reformist policies into the labour economic platform. Good riddance to the centrist labour PM's, no? Let them die off in the next elections.


----------



## deepelemblues

The incompetence of Tory leadership since John Major pulled the rug out from under the Great She-Devil Thatcher has been exceeded only by the incompetence of Labour leadership. 

Well, Nick Clegg and Alex Salmond have strong cases for exceeding both groups in their incompetence I guess. :draper2

Corbyn is a loser peddling the same failed policies of the 1970s that resulted in the Great She-Devil dragging Britain, many times kicking and screaming, out of the doldrums of that decade. He's also completely incapable of dealing with the anti-Semitism running rampant through some portions of Labour, or unwilling to deal with it.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

deepelemblues said:


> The incompetence of Tory leadership since John Major pulled the rug out from under the Great She-Devil Thatcher has been exceeded only by the incompetence of Labour leadership.
> 
> Well, Nick Clegg and Alex Salmond have strong cases for exceeding both groups in their incompetence I guess. :draper2
> 
> Corbyn is a loser peddling the same failed policies of the 1970s that resulted in the Great She-Devil dragging Britain, many times kicking and screaming, out of the doldrums of that decade. He's also completely incapable of dealing with the anti-Semitism running rampant through some portions of Labour, or unwilling to deal with it.


As much of a problem as anti-semitism is throughout popular discourse and the extremist sectors of Palestine, the Islamophobia rampant throughout the Conservative party of the UK and the Likud party of Israel are just as problematic, especially since they are the ones with the much bigger guns.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Draykorinee said:


> Labour imploding, Corbyn was my great hope and he's been a disaster. People always say but he nearly beat May, yeah, he nearly beat the WORST PM and the worst run campaign in generations, a campaign run on a vote to bringing back fox hunting and dismantle pensions ffs.
> 
> I'm not convinced that the new group is not just a centrist party which i have zero interest in but I can see them making a new party even if they say they won't.
> 
> Its time for Corbyn to go.
> 
> The left are so poorly represented.


The fact that Labour are behind the Tories in the polls is a tragedy, and highly embarrassing. Surely this must be both the most incompetent Government, and the most incompetent opposition in living memory. UK politics is shambolic right now.

One of Corbyn's main problems (amongst many others) is that as an MP he voted countless times against his own party, defying the whip in the process. So how can he now as leader command any sort of authority? 

I don't see why these 'rebel' MP's don't just join the Lib Dems? I really don't see how their positions, especially on Brexit, differ significantly from Lib Dem party policy.

The issue is, who replaces Corbyn if he resigns? There is a fundamental chasm between Labour party members/ supporters and Labour MP's. Corbyn is still popular with party members, he represents their leftist views, even if he is totally inept, and frankly they don't want a centrist to lead the party again. The MP's on the other hand have been pretty alienated by Corbyn, McDonnell, etc, and they are fully aware that as leader their jobs are at risk; but they can't get rid of him, they tried and failed. Unsurprising when the best alternatives they could muster were Angela Eagle and Owen Smith. There is also the omnipresent issue of Brexit. While most Labour supporters did vote to remain it is worth considering that the majority of Labour constituencies did vote to leave. That's a problem. It's ok for Chuka Umunna for example to oppose Brexit fully, but he has a majority in his constituency of over 26,000. Other Labour MP's can't afford to be so brazenly against Brexit, even if that is their private position. That therefore also causes a further divide in the Labour party, just as it has in the Conservative party. 

The British people as a whole are poorly represented. Shambolic!



GrumpyHawk said:


> The Labour party was pathetic before Corbyn got into power, more of the same austerity, Conservative-light policies were ridiculous. Corbyn has introduced, much needed, genuine reformist policies into the labour economic platform. Good riddance to the centrist labour PM's, no? Let them die off in the next elections.


Yeah, except they're unelectable. What good is it to reform the party and energise the base, if you have virtually no chance of ever implementing such policy and the party is coming apart at the seams?

Most of Labour's MP's are centrists, so what happens if they all leave? They also won't die off in the next election.


----------



## The Absolute

Here we go again.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097825973318402048
You guys ready to feel the bern again?


----------



## 777

Oy vey! I don't know if Bernie can do it now that he's rolled over once.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Yeah, except they're unelectable. What good is it to reform the party and energise the base, if you have virtually no chance of ever implementing such policy and the party is coming apart at the seams?
> 
> Most of Labour's MP's are centrists, so what happens if they all leave? They also won't die off in the next election.


Whats the point in getting elected in the first place if you'r just going to implement more bad policies when in power?

Besides, I think you might be underestimating the grass roots movement behind Corbyn, when activated it could be a very effective force in replacing bad MP's and bringing good reform of the labour party to fruition.


----------



## Aincrad

Wow, Gerald Butts resigned from Trudeau's cabinet to take the fall for the SNC-Lavelin scandal. Butts and Katie Telford are the brains behind Trudeau (and before him, Kathleen Wynne in Ontario), that's a heavy loss.

At worst, I figured Trudeau was winning the next election with a minority government and that's only if he shot himself in the foot. Now I could believe him straight up losing it (but still not from anything the opposition leaders do, they're so weak that I could just as easily see Trudeau charisma-ing himself back into a majority)


----------



## DaRealNugget

The Absolute said:


> Here we go again.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097825973318402048
> You guys ready to feel the bern again?




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097828878310096901
:mark:

signed up for the monthly $27 donation. let's do this :mark:


----------



## Reaper

Voting Bernie. 

I will be able to pay for my citizenship early 2020 so I'll be eligible to vote in 2020.


----------



## DaRealNugget

our boy is already smashing records.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097881486588444673


----------



## CamillePunk

Let's start the insanity. :heston


----------



## Aincrad

How do I illegally vote in American elections again? Gotta give that American Left Wing a boost.

Or does that only worked if I'm a PoC and/or ghetto trash?


----------



## Reaper

Aincrad said:


> Or does that only worked if I'm a PoC and/or ghetto trash?


Only if you're brown sorry. Otherwise you're not a cheater, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't murder, don't rape, don't over-stay your visas, don't steal from taxpayers 

etc 

etc

etc


----------



## Aincrad

That's a little harsh, American social security is being propped up by illegals paying in when they're never going to collect.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gop-campaign-worker-admits-to-filling-in-republican-votes-on-absentee-ballots-says-she-was-later-told-to-lie/



> *GOP Campaign Worker in NC Admits to Filling in Republican Votes on Absentee Ballots, Claims She Was Told to Lie*
> 
> Republican Mark Harris initially appeared to have defeated Democrat Dan McCready by a razor-thin 905-vote margin on election night last November. That apparent victory was never certified, however, due to allegations that the GOP cobbled together their win through the use of absentee ballot fraud. At the center of those allegations is GOP campaign operative McCrae Dowless.
> 
> At a Monday evidentiary hearing conducted by the North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE), a campaign worker employed by Dowless detailed several aspects of the Republican campaign’s alleged efforts to steal the election for Harris in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District. The same woman also said that when the alleged scheme was discovered, Dowless instructed her to lie about their efforts.
> 
> Lisa Britt was the first witness to give testimony at the NCSBE hearing. In her opening statement, Britt admitted that she did not tell the truth to a local news station about unlawfully collecting absentee ballots in violation of state law. During this interview–which was conducted in Dowless’ kitchen–Britt said that she and others employed by Dowless did nothing illegal during the 2018 midterm election. During Monday’s hearing, Britt walked all of that back.
> 
> Britt began working for Dowless in June or July of 2018 and said that she was paid according to the number of people she registered for absentee ballot request forms–and when she picked up absentee ballots. For every 50 ballots requested or obtained, Dowless would pay Britt and others between $125-175, she said.
> 
> “I took the signed, sealed ballot,” Britt said during her testimony about one specific ballot entered into evidence. “That ballot was turned back in with the other ballots I had collected that day.”
> 
> Britt said that she and other members of the Dowless team collected several unsealed ballots and opened them to ascertain who voters had selected. When voters had left certain races blank, Britt said, she and others would fill those races in for the Republican candidate. Britt also said that she was instructed to make copies of all absentee ballot request forms and that she kept them in a folder. The original forms, she said, were given to Dowless. Additional copies were also allegedly made for Bladen County Improvement Association PAC’s Lola Wooten–who Britt says was in Dowless’ office at least once a week.
> 
> Britt also admitted to filling out absentee ballot request forms at the direction of Dowless. One such form belonged to James Shipman–who somehow managed to sign his signature even though he is dead. Britt claimed not to have signed the form in question.
> 
> While Britt said she did not forge people’s signatures, she did admit to witnessing several absentee ballots–using two separate names.
> 
> Because Britt and another Dowless employee had witnessed so many absentee ballots, Britt says that she began signing her mom’s name because using the same two witnesses repeatedly “threw up a red flag”–an action that Britt said Dowless was aware of at the time.
> 
> Britt also said that Dowless wanted the forms filled out and witness signatures signed using the same color ink so as not to arouse suspicion. Similarly, Britt and Dowless would only mail completed absentee ballots 9 or 10 at a time–another way to avoid another “red flag,” she said.
> 
> And that’s not nearly all.
> 
> After county and state elections boards refused to certify the Harris win, Dowless allegedly had a meeting at his home with several alleged ballot mill staffers. During that meeting, Dowless allegedly told his employees not to admit that they ever collected absentee ballots and said, “as long as we stick together, we will be fine.”
> 
> Britt originally stuck with Dowless, she said, because she viewed him as a father figure. But as investigators tightened the screws, Britt says she came to believe that Dowless had done something wrong. Near the end of Britt’s testimony, she submitted a letter that she says Dowless gave her late last week. According to Britt, the letter outlined a statement Dowless wanted her to make at Monday’s hearing.
> 
> The letter reads, in full:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you that I haven’t done anything wrong in the election and McCrae Dowless has never told me to do anything wrong, and to my knowledge he has never done anything wrong, but I am taking the 5th Amendment because I don’t have an attorney and I feel like you will try to trip me up. I am taking the 5th.
Click to expand...


----------



## birthday_massacre

DaRealNugget said:


> our boy is already smashing records.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097881486588444673


Here come Berime Sanders


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Here come Berime Sanders


Bernie has been polling the best out of all democrat candidates.


----------



## MrMister

Let's just skip to the madness. This is the last election we'll have Trump. Nothing in politics will ever be this entertaining again.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Bernie has been polling the best out of all democrat candidates.


Here is what will probably happen.

The final two will be Bernie and Harris and the DNC will screw over Sanders again, and then it will be another toss up with Harris vs Trump with a ton of Bernie supporters not voting again because the DNC screw him over again.

Harris is the chosen one, it will probably be Hillary all over again.


----------



## blaird

Reaper said:


> Bernie has been polling the best out of all democrat candidates.


Who will be his biggest challenger? Biden if he runs? If Biden doesnt run, I dont think there is anyone who will come close to him.

Im not a huge Bernie fan, but like him significantly more than any of the current candidates.


----------



## Aincrad

Why is everyone talking like Hillary won't give it another go?


----------



## The Absolute

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097934597260685312
Jesus.


----------



## Miss Sally

I'll support Tulsi, voting for Sanders is worthless, might as well vote for Harris since he'll just be the establishment stooge.



Aincrad said:


> That's a little harsh, American social security is being propped up by illegals paying in when they're never going to collect.


Hate to break it to you chief but no Americans will be getting social security after like 10-20 years. 

Also illegals making minimum wage contribute very little because making that little money you don't get much of anything taken out. This is also not counting that many illegals work under the table so no money is taken out that way.


----------



## Reaper

blaird said:


> Who will be his biggest challenger? Biden if he runs? If Biden doesnt run, I dont think there is anyone who will come close to him.
> 
> Im not a huge Bernie fan, but like him significantly more than any of the current candidates.


Bernie doesn't have a challenger at all. Not as a popular candidate. But the way Democrats will run the primaries is the same as they did with Hillary. If Hillary doesn't run, Kamala is the establishment necon puppet that's going to replace Hillary.

Therefore Bernie will need a massive majority to win the nomination. He's not getting it on anything less. 

The establishment is spreading the field to ensure that Bernie doesn't have a clear majority.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> I'll support Tulsi, voting for Sanders is worthless, might as well vote for Harris since he'll just be the establishment stooge.
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you chief but no Americans will be getting social security after like 10-20 years.
> 
> Also illegals making minimum wage contribute very little because making that little money you don't get much of anything taken out. This is also not counting that many illegals work under the table so no money is taken out that way.


LOL at calling Sanders an establishment stooge.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at calling Sanders an establishment stooge.


He has no balls, you really think those Politicians are going to give him the time of day? Please.

What is he going to do?

What will the voters do?

Nothing. Because American voters won't vote out the corrupt ass Politicians already there, who've been there for decades and that won't change.

The people thinking Sanders will change anything is like the people who thought Trump would. :laugh:


----------



## Mr.Monkey

Here's my take even if people don't care."Blessed is the man who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed"- Alexander Pope.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> He has no balls, you really think those Politicians are going to give him the time of day? Please.
> 
> What is he going to do?
> 
> What will the voters do?
> 
> Nothing. Because American voters won't vote out the corrupt ass Politicians already there, who've been there for decades and that won't change.
> 
> The people thinking Sanders will change anything is like the people who thought Trump would. :laugh:


American voters are already voting out the corrupt ass Politicians and in 2020 it will be even bigger. 

You are embarrassing yourself trying to compare Trump to Sanders. Sanders is actively trying to change things, we all knew Trump was full of shit unless you were one of his uninformed supporters


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> American voters are already voting out the corrupt ass Politicians and in 2020 it will be even bigger.
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself trying to compare Trump to Sanders. Sanders is actively trying to change things, we all knew Trump was full of shit unless you were one of his uninformed supporters


The comparison is valid, both their supporters believe/believed they'd do magical things and change stuff. Stop trying to deny the similarities it's silly. The only embarrassment is lambasting one side while acting just like them with their candidate that will change everything. You heard it hear first folks, this time, no really this time _*things will change!*_

Yes, I expect Sanders to make changes like he did when he ran last time and bent the knee to Hillary like a good boy. He'll be bending the knee to Kamala this time. :laugh:


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> The comparison is valid, both their supporters believe/believed they'd do magical things and change stuff. Stop trying to deny the similarities it's silly. The only embarrassment is lambasting one side while acting just like them with their candidate that will change everything. You heard it hear first folks, this time, no really this time _*things will change!*_
> 
> Yes, I expect Sanders to make changes like he did when he ran last time and bent the knee to Hillary like a good boy. He'll be bending the knee to Kamala this time. :laugh:


They are not even close to being similar. All teh smart people knew Trump was lying in what he said about draining the swamp and being a populist. Sanders is actually a populist. Trump never wanted to change anything, he lied to his stupid supporters and they believed him, Trump only ever cared about lining his pockets and his rich buddies pockets, Sanders actually wants to help the middle class and poor. 

Bernie will still try to change things for the better, Trump never wanted to but just pretended he wanted to.

Its not about actually changing everyone, its about actually wanting to change what you claim you want to change Bernie is genuine about that, Trump was always full of shit

Trying to claim they are the same is super disingenuous on your part

Bernie Sanders is not going to keep claiming he is for the middle class and poor then turn around and do everything for the 1% and fuck over the middle class and poor like Trump did


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally speaking gospel truth on Bernie right now. :banderas Dude's a total cuck, he's not doing shit even if he does somehow win. 

Meanwhile


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097956717680345089
Imagine my shock. :mj It'll be about identity politics from the get go. B-b-b-but muh free stuff!


----------



## Reaper

Uh oh. He used cuck and free stuff in the same post. :kobelol

Most everyone here has shown some sort of growth but poor CP Is still stuck in 2016. 

Probably shouldn't be taking any sort of advice from a guy who believed until 1 month ago that Trump wasn't an establishment neocon.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Uh oh. He used cuck and free stuff in the same post. :kobelol
> 
> Most everyone here has shown some sort of growth but poor CP Is still stuck in 2016.
> 
> Probably shouldn't be taking any sort of advice from a guy who believed until 1 month ago that Trump wasn't an establishment neocon.


so glad I put him on ignore lol


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> so glad I put him on ignore lol


I will occasionally catch a post and it'll give me serious deja vu. Like matrix style where he's stuck in a repetitive loop.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> I will occasionally catch a post and it'll give me serious deja vu. Like matrix style where he's stuck in a repetitive loop.


Yeah its like groundhog day with some people.

Keep hearing I got you babe every time they wake up


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah its like groundhog day with some people.
> 
> Keep hearing I got you babe every time they wake up


Is CP just a troll or is he actually serious with the things he says?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> Is CP just a troll or is he actually serious with the things he says?


sadly he is serious


----------



## CamillePunk

Well hey, if white men are ruled out then I guess that gives Tulsi a better chance. 

Nah, it's gonna be Harris vs Trump. :mj4


----------



## skypod

The "never Bernie" Hill-bots on twitter are insufferable. Kamala Harris will gain a lot of votes from the uneducated who want to play identity politics. Harris should be glad Bernie's come out with a 2020 platform so she has something to cut and paste. 

Honestly anyone who votes for the establishment doesn't deserve to have healthcare, paid vacation etc. Instead they'll vote Harris and wonder why in five years absolutely nothing has improved for Black lives in America.


----------



## Metalhead1

Aincrad said:


> Gesticulating makes you a more effective public speaker, and people are more likely to remember what you say.


That's an interesting point and perhaps he knows this since his whole hand-flailing routine is clearly calculated. Nobody flails their hands that much unless they're a trained monkey or a mental patient. Haha.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Miss Sally speaking gospel truth on Bernie right now. :banderas Dude's a total cuck, he's not doing shit even if he does somehow win.
> 
> Meanwhile
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097956717680345089
> Imagine my shock. :mj It'll be about identity politics from the get go. B-b-b-but muh free stuff!


I'm honestly excited! 

Bernie is going to play Identity Politics hard to try and win over people, take a page right out of the establishment playbook.

So, Sarsour likes his new hire? Makes me wonder how this person feels about Jewish people now.. :laugh:


----------



## DaRealNugget

'Unprecedented': Bernie Sanders Campaign Says It Raised $6 Million From 225,000 Donors in First 24 Hours

:done

bernie sanders coming in like










we have ourselves a frontrunner, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## roblewis87

Bernie Sanders would be great for your country.

Shame a lot of Americans don't see it that way.


----------



## virus21

DaRealNugget said:


> 'Unprecedented': Bernie Sanders Campaign Says It Raised $6 Million From 225,000 Donors in First 24 Hours
> 
> :done
> 
> bernie sanders coming in like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have ourselves a frontrunner, ladies and gentlemen.


He'll get screwed, just like last time


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> He'll get screwed, just like last time


Yeah. 100% obvious that Kamala is the one that the establishment is gunning for the most. 

I think they're having trouble getting Biden to agree to run. The man seems to have lost all interest since losing his son.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098192352072646656
:lol 

As crazy as the Dem primaries are gonna be already, I'm really hoping Hillary jumps into the race now.


----------



## MrMister

That comet Bernie killing everyone doesn't have Andrew Wang as one of the dinosaurs :brady6


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

white men will be absolutely prohibited from being the democratic nominee. 

#whitepriviledge

:lol


----------



## CamillePunk

SomeBlackGuy's response to the Black Conservatives vs Black Liberals documentary by Vice I posted a while back:


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> white men will be absolutely prohibited from being the democratic nominee.
> 
> #whitepriviledge
> 
> :lol


Nothin to do with being white or not champ, it's politics and who will be better for 'The Establishment' and not make too much noise.

Try again!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Some good news from the Supreme Court.

9-0 :clap

It's a good first step.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html



> *Supreme Court Limits Police Powers to Seize Private Property*
> 
> WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Constitution places limits on the ability of states and localities to take and keep cash, cars, houses and other private property used to commit crimes.
> 
> The practice, known as civil forfeiture, is a popular way to raise revenue and is easily abused, and it has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum. The court’s decision will open the door to new legal arguments when the value of the property seized was out of proportion to the crimes involved.
> 
> In this case, the court sided with Tyson Timbs, a small-time drug offender in Indiana who pleaded guilty to selling $225 of heroin to undercover police officers. He was sentenced to one year of house arrest and five years of probation, and was ordered to pay $1,200 in fees and fines.
> 
> State officials also seized Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he had bought with the proceeds of his father’s life insurance policy, saying he had used it to commit crimes.
> 
> The Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment, which bars “excessive fines,” limits the ability of the federal government to seize property. On Wednesday, in a 9-to-0 decision that united justices on the left and right, the court ruled that the clause also applies to the states under the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.
> 
> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight justices, said the question before the court was an easy one. “The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming,” she wrote.
> 
> “For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” she wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”
> 
> Quoting from an earlier decision, she wrote that even absent a political motive, “fines may be employed ‘in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence,’ for ‘fines are a source of revenue,’ while other forms of punishment ‘cost a state money.’”
> 
> Justice Ginsburg also wrote that excessive fines have played a dark role in this nation’s history.
> 
> “Following the Civil War,” she wrote, “Southern states enacted Black Codes to subjugate newly freed slaves and maintain the prewar racial hierarchy. Among these laws’ provisions were draconian fines for violating broad proscriptions on ‘vagrancy’ and other dubious offenses.”
> 
> The decision will not halt civil forfeitures, said Wesley P. Hottot, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented the Land Rover’s owner.
> 
> “People are still going to lose their property without being convicted of a crime, they’re still going to have their property seized,” Mr. Hottot said. “The new thing is that they can now say at the end of it all, whether I’m guilty or not, I can argue that it was excessive.”
> 
> Law enforcement agencies have resisted efforts to curtail civil forfeiture, saying they rely on the proceeds for sorely needed equipment. It is difficult, if not impossible, to calculate the total value of civil forfeitures by local police departments and prosecutors, but a significant portion comes from joint operations with federal law enforcement and is tracked by the Justice Department.
> 
> In fiscal year 2018, state and local agencies received $400 million through this arrangement, known as equitable sharing. The amount varied widely by agency — the Surprise Police Department in Arizona received $570,000, while the Buffalo Police Department in upstate New York got $130,000. The New York Police Department took in $7.8 million.
> 
> In Philadelphia, forfeiture proceeds once accounted for 20 percent of prosecutors’ budget, while agencies in New York and California tended to take in the highest sums, according to the Institute for Justice.
> 
> Investigations across the country have uncovered many examples where the property seized was disproportionate to the crime, taken from innocent citizens or targeted in accordance with law enforcement wish lists. As its name suggests, a civil forfeiture does not require a criminal conviction or even criminal charges but only proof that the property at issue was used in connection with a crime. Owners who wish to reclaim their property must demonstrate that it was not, or that it was used without their knowledge.
> 
> A recent series of articles by the Greenville News examined every civil forfeiture case in South Carolina from 2014 to 2016, finding examples like that of Ella Bromell, a 72-year-old woman who had to fight off the forfeiture of her home after drug dealers conducted transactions on her property, despite Ms. Bromell’s multiple attempts to stop them.
> 
> A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
> 
> In a similar case in Philadelphia, where law enforcement agencies once took in $5.6 million a year in civil forfeiture, according to the Institute for Justice, a couple’s home was seized in 2014 after their son was arrested on charges of making a $40 drug sale there. A case against the city’s forfeiture practices was finally settled last year.
> 
> Justice Ginsburg suggested that the effect of the ruling could be limited. “All 50 states,” she wrote, “have a constitutional provision prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines either directly or by requiring proportionality.” Wednesday’s decision may influence how state courts interpret those provisions, and they may use them to scrutinize civil forfeitures more closely.
> 
> The Supreme Court had already ruled that most of the protections in the Bill of Rights, which originally restricted the power of only the federal government, also applied to the states under the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The court left open the question of whether the seizure of Mr. Timbs’s Land Rover amounted to an excessive fine, leaving its resolution to lower courts. But Justice Ginsburg suggested that the penalty was disproportionate to the offense, writing that the vehicle was worth “more than four times the maximum $10,000 monetary fine assessable against him for his drug conviction.”
> 
> Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the result in the case, Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091, but said he would have gotten to the same place by a different route.
> 
> While the majority on Wednesday relied on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas said he would have ruled “the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the 14th Amendment.”
> 
> The difference between the two approaches was meaningful, he wrote, accusing the Supreme Court of misplaced reliance on the due process clause to establish substantive constitutional rights like ones to abortion and same-sex marriage.
> 
> Justice Thomas did not address objections to modern civil forfeiture practices on Wednesday. In a 2017 opinion, though, he wrote that “this system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.” His opinion cited reporting from The Washington Post and The New Yorker.
> 
> Mr. Hottot, who argued on behalf of Mr. Timbs, said courts alone cannot address the abuses inherent in civil forfeiture.
> 
> “Police and prosecutors will continue to engage in this kind of policing for profit unless and until legislatures no longer allow them to keep 100 percent of the proceeds to forfeitures,” he said.
> 
> He added that Wednesday’s ruling could nonetheless bring needed scrutiny to the issue.
> 
> “Police and prosecutors have no incentive to be reasonable about what they take because they get to keep everything they take,” he said. “Now we know that judges at the end of the process have to evaluate if that’s really justice or not.”


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> Nothin to do with being white or not champ, it's politics and who will be better for 'The Establishment' and not make too much noise.
> 
> Try again!


Let's revisit this post when the primaries get heated and the gloves start to come off. 

You'll be able to start a drinking game based on how many times the race and gender card will be played.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

2 Ton 21 said:


> Some good news from the Supreme Court.
> 
> 9-0 :clap
> 
> It's a good first step.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html


It is interesting how the conservative justices, on the supreme court, are willing to admit law enforcement can be abusive when white collar crimes are involved.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098678131760652289
He's not wrong. :lol Bernie is a leech and always has been.


----------



## Draykorinee

Yeah Bernie, how many more years are you going to do the job your paid to do!


----------



## Kabraxal

Draykorinee said:


> Yeah Bernie, how many more years are you going to do the job your paid to do!


We pay him to be an idiot? And massively over pay him too...


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

i guess bruce wayne and tony stark are the REAL comic book villains huh?

lousy billionaires i tell you. to hell with them and their nice things.


----------



## DaRealNugget

you guys sound panicked.

also, :lmao at posting ben shapiro unironically. what a geek.


----------



## Draykorinee

Kabraxal said:


> We pay him to be an idiot? And massively over pay him too...


Good one, you really got him.


----------



## Miss Sally

2 Ton 21 said:


> Some good news from the Supreme Court.
> 
> 9-0 :clap
> 
> It's a good first step.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html


----------



## virus21




----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098678131760652289
> He's not wrong. :lol Bernie is a leech and always has been.


Of Ben would hate Bernie. Ben wants more useless offensive wars.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098678131760652289
> He's not wrong. :lol Bernie is a leech and always has been.


Bernie advocates for economic justice, but no... he is not Buddha... sorry for that.

Edit: It's not fair to say Bernie has not produced "anything of worth". The people who continue to elect him certainly believe he has been of worth to them. What has Ben Shapiro ever produced "of worth"?


----------



## 2 Ton 21




----------



## ShiningStar

Crazy Bernie,Copmala,Pocahontas,Gropey Joe,Rock's Cousin,Angry Amy,FCW Hilary ...........


None of them are guranteed to beat Trump,only 1 person can


----------



## DaRealNugget

ShiningStar said:


> Crazy Bernie,Copmala,Pocahontas,Gropey Joe,Rock's Cousin,Angry Amy,FCW Hilary ...........
> 
> 
> None of them are guranteed to beat Trump,only 1 person can


i think your image is broken. i fixed it for you.


----------



## Miss Sally

Why would anyone vote for Bernie when Yang is the younger, more diverse and seemingly less wimpy option?


----------



## Pratchett

The Democratic Party is going to be playing "crabs in a bucket" for the next year. Leaving easy picking for Trump in the 2020 election.

No matter what the end result is a more ideologically fractured nation of people who refuse to get along with each other.

In other words, everything going according to plan... :lenny5


----------



## deepelemblues

ShiningStar said:


> Crazy Bernie,Copmala,Pocahontas,Gropey Joe,Rock's Cousin,Angry Amy,FCW Hilary ...........
> 
> 
> None of them are guranteed to beat Trump,only 1 person can


*WRONG*



DaRealNugget said:


> i think your image is broken. i fixed it for you.


Closer, but still *WRONG*

This will not just be a contest for the United States

The very _world_ is at stake!










Also without a recession :trump is winning plain and simple, he'll talk about socialism more than the Democrat will and there are just too many low-hanging fruits to smack on that topic


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> Why would anyone vote for Bernie when Yang is the younger, more diverse and seemingly less wimpy option?


Yang doesn't seem to be playing the identity politics game as much from what I've seen of him. Could be wrong.

Can't imagine supporting Bernie over Tulsi, honestly. :lol They have pretty much the same policies, Tulsi just isn't a spineless self-hating cuck like Bernie is.


----------



## DOPA

Miss Sally said:


> Why would anyone vote for Bernie when Yang is the younger, more diverse and seemingly less wimpy option?


Bernie honestly needs to drop the Democratic Socialist label.

A work colleague of mine spoke to me about Bernie confirming his 2020 run and the first words that came out of his mouth were "He's a socialist isn't he?"

I had to explain to him that in practice, Bernie is actually a social democrat whose policies more adhere to the Nordic countries. The conflation of the two terms confuses anybody who isn't either a) a supporter of his already or b) a political junkie who knows the ins and outs of political differences.

As for Yang, I watched the podcast with Rogan and honestly I was pretty impressed. He's the most data driven candidate out there as far as I can tell and he made some pretty good arguments as to why UBI is needed and is hugely important. I didn't agree with all of his points and some of them didn't land (like once again....blaming income inequality for low birth rates and marriages when the reason is cultural) but he certainly gave me food for thought.

He's also the only candidate from the left I've seen actually make a decent argument against tuition free college....though I could have given him some pointers. I know that makes me sound arrogant but honestly, the UK is the best case study for free university vs paid and why free university is honestly a bad idea and won't get the kind of results much of the left would want and hope for. But I liked that he bucked progressive orthodoxy on that issue and that he has his own mind.

Finally, he seemingly rejected identity politics when talking about the white working class in the mid west and rust belt states and seems to genuinely care about their plight. Which is a big bonus because it was those voters who swung for Trump which basically decided the last election. Modern Identity politics honestly displays some of the worst aspects of the current day Democratic Party which many politicians even ones from the left can't seem to let go of. Even Bernie plays it to a large degree by supporting the women's March and constantly arguing that Trump is a racist sexist bigot homophobe. So Yang's take on the podcast was refreshing.

I'd currently put him at #2 behind Tulsi for who I prefer as the Democrat nominee.


-------------------------------------------


In UK news: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...vAPz2eS2KW8met8AZrjy0G3xkETmLcuvok-YFX9xS7JjU



> A potential police recruit who was rejected from a force because he is white, male and heterosexual has said he believes many other men may have been similarly discriminated against.
> 
> *An employment tribunal found Cheshire Police was guilty of discrimination against Matthew Furlong on the grounds of sexual orientation, race and gender after his application to join was unsuccessful.*
> 
> The 25-year-old particle physics graduate, who applied to be a constable in 2017, discovered *he had been turned down because the force needed more diverse candidates.*
> 
> “It has completely shattered my confidence in the police force recruitment system," he said.
> 
> "The irony of the whole thing is that throughout the whole process I was required to demonstrate my honesty and integrity and they have completely undermined that.
> 
> "Had I lied on my interview form and said I was bisexual, for instance, there's a strong possibility I would be working for Cheshire Police now based on a lie."
> 
> Mr Furlong – whose father has served the same force for more than 20 years – said he had been on cloud nine after being told he could not have done more during his interview.
> 
> But he said he was devastated to learn he had lost out to other candidates. He was told in feedback there were not enough vacancies for all 127 people who had passed the interview stage.
> 
> *At last week’s tribunal in Liverpool, Judge Clare Grundy found the force had set the pass threshold “artificially low” and candidates were awarded a simple pass or fail, which meant large swathes of potential recruits were deemed equal when, in reality, some were much more suited to the role than others.*
> 
> Mr Furlong said: "I am not the only person who has been affected by this. There are many other white heterosexual males who undoubtedly left the whole interview process with the impression that they weren't good enough when in fact many were.
> 
> "In addition, I worry for the candidates who have been appointed as they may question whether they were appointed based on merit or whether they simply had a particular protected characteristic."
> 
> He said he was no longer sure if he wanted to achieve his lifelong ambition of joining the police.
> 
> "I am delighted the tribunal found in my favour and I hope it will prevent the same thing from happening again, but I don't know what I want to do now," Mr Furlong said.
> 
> "If I applied again and did get in I would worry that the same issues could arise if I went for a promotion. It has certainly made it very difficult for me to continue down that path."
> 
> *His lawyers said his case was the first of its kind in the UK.*
> 
> The employment tribunal ruled that the force used positive action – where employers take steps to recruit certain groups of people – but in a discriminatory way.
> 
> It said that while positive action could be used to boost diversity, it should only be applied to distinguish between candidates who were all equally well qualified for a role.
> 
> Jennifer Ainscough, an employment lawyer at Slater and Gordon, said: "This is an incredibly important ruling and something all employers need to be aware of in the future when using positive action.
> 
> "They must be prepared to show that their recruitment process is lawful or risk leaving themselves open to similar claims, in which this case would almost certainly be relied upon."
> 
> A spokesman for Cheshire Police said: "We have been notified of the outcome of the tribunal and will review the findings over the coming days."



The endless pursuit for diversity in the workforce has led to knowingly or unknowingly, white heterosexual males being denied employment not because they weren't good enough for the role but because they simply didn't fill the quota that the employer wanted adhere to.

In this case with the police, it is not the private sector but the public. So taxpayer money is being diverted towards this. These type of incidents have only grown in recent years. Whilst I think the intention is more towards having a more diverse workforce rather than shutting out Caucasian straight men, it's still discrimination no matter how you try to justify it.

The fact that this case was the 1st of it's kind hopefully will set precedent so that this issue gets fixed so it doesn't become a problem any longer. Maybe I'm being too hopeful but the magnitude of this case I'm hoping can instill positive change.

Also the Independent website is garbage and there were a number of cancerous comments that thankfully for the most part have been downvoted. Just wanted to throw that out there .


------------------------

@DesolationRow In other, more positive and definitely interesting news: https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/02/...crew-dragon-for-critical-march-2-test-flight/



> NASA managers held a flight readiness review Friday and cleared SpaceX to press ahead with work to ready a Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon commercial ferry ship for launch March 2 on an unpiloted test flight to the International Space Station.
> 
> The long-awaited mission is a critical milestone in NASA’s $6.8 billion Commercial Crew Program, intended to end the agency’s sole reliance on Russian Soyuz spacecraft to ferry U.S. and partner astronauts to and from the station in the wake of the space shuttle’s retirement eight years ago.
> 
> If all goes well, two NASA astronauts hope to take off aboard a Crew Dragon spacecraft on the first piloted test flight in July.
> 
> “It’s more than a test flight, it’s really a mission to the International Space Station, it’s part of the Commercial Crew Program that really gets us ready for the … crew flight that comes up later,” Bill Gerstenmaier, director of space flight operations at NASA Headquarters, said of the unpiloted test flight.
> 
> “So this is an absolutely critical first step that we do as we move towards eventually returning crew launch capability back here to the U.S.”
> 
> Liftoff from historic pad 39A is targeted for 2:49:03 a.m. EST a week from Saturday, at roughly the moment Earth’s rotation carries the rocket into the plane of the space station’s orbit. That’s the only way current rockets can rendezvous with an orbital target moving at nearly five miles per second.
> 
> Backup launch opportunities are available on March 5 and March 9, but after that, NASA would have to stand down until after a Russian Soyuz flight scheduled for launch March 14 to ferry cosmonaut Alexey Ovchinin, NASA flight engineers Nick Hague and Christina Koch to the station.
> 
> Ovchinin and Hague suffered a dramatic Soyuz booster malfunction during their initial climb to space last October, but the capsule and crew landed safety about 250 miles from the launch site in Kazakhstan. The Russian space agency corrected the problem, revised the launch schedule and Koch, already in training for a downstream flight, was added to the mission.
> 
> In any case, NASA managers attending the FRR Friday at the Kennedy Space Center reviewed launch processing to date and the status of remaining “open” items that either must be resolved or waived before flight and those that can be deferred in the near term.
> 
> Among the topics under discussion were the Crew Dragon’s parachute system and testing to certify it for use in the upcoming piloted mission, temperature-related issues with the capsule’s maneuvering thrusters and the status of redesigned high-pressure helium tanks, known as COPVs, that are submerged in super-cold liquid oxygen inside the Falcon 9 rocket.
> 
> Trouble with an earlier version of the tank was blamed for a spectacular on-pad Falcon 9 explosion in 2016. The helium pressurization system also was implicated in an in-flight breakup in 2015 when a strut holding a tank in place failed, triggering the destruction of a station-bound Dragon cargo ship.
> 
> The issue for the Crew Dragon mission is understanding the physics that led to the on-pad explosion and making sure the redesigned tanks, known as COPV version 2.0, are not vulnerable to the same failure mode.
> 
> “One of the things the composite overwrap pressure vessel has (are) fibers that are twisted together,” Gerstenmaier said. “As those pressurize, they can break, and as they break they can potentially generate heat, if they can generate enough heat in the oxygen environment they can be an ignition source.
> 
> “So now we’re going back and we’re proving to ourselves that this breaking is so unlikely it’s not going to be a concern.”
> 
> One issue that needs to be resolved in the near term involves Russian concerns about the computer guidance and safety systems aboard the Crew Dragon that will control the spacecraft’s final approach to the space station.
> 
> Gerstenmaier said European, Japanese and Russian spacecraft that rendezvous with the station typically carry independent systems that can abort an approach in the event of a massive computer failure that might leave a ship on a collision course with the lab. The Crew Dragon relies instead on redundancy in the primary computer system.
> 
> “One of the actions I assigned was to go look a little more rigorously at some of the fault detection and response to various failures to make sure the computers do all the right things, that we don’t get in a situation where essentially the vehicle goes dead or dormant and then just continues its approach and collides with station,” Gerstenmaier said.
> 
> “That’s the basic concern the Russians brought up, why isn’t there a separate system or separate box to go provide this backup capability? We think we have sufficient rationale for that.”
> 
> Gerstenmaier said such technical issues are not unusual in the development of human-rated spacecraft and going into the Demo 1 mission, “we haven’t set the total envelope of where some of the hardware can operate and how it can be used” during piloted flights.
> 
> “But we know the hardware is good enough to go do this demonstration flight,” he said. “In fact, we want it to go to flight to see if there’s something else we’ve missed, and we fully expect to learn some things on this fight.”
> 
> Assuming the Demo 1 takes off March 2 as now planned, the Crew Dragon spacecraft will carry out an autonomous rendezvous, catching up with the space station the day after launch and moving in for docking at the lab’s forward port, the same one once used by visiting space shuttles, around 6 a.m. on March 3.
> 
> The station’s crew — Russian commander Oleg Kononenko, Canadian physician-astronaut David Saint-Jacques and NASA flight engineer Anne McClain — will open hatches and inspect the new spacecraft a few hours after docking.
> 
> The flight plan calls for the Demo 1 Crew Dragon to undock on March 8 and return to an Atlantic Ocean splashdown about 230 miles east of Cape Canaveral. SpaceX recovery crews stationed nearby will pull the capsule onto a ship and haul it back to Port Canaveral for detailed post-flight inspections.
> 
> Assuming no major problems develop — and assuming an in-flight abort test goes well this spring — astronauts Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley hope to blast off in a Crew Dragon this summer to kick off the first launch of U.S. astronauts aboard an American-made rocket from U.S. soil since the shuttle program ended in July 2011.
> 
> NASA also is funding development of a Boeing capsule known as the CST-100 Starliner that is scheduled for an unpiloted launch atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket later this spring. The first piloted Starliner flight, carrying Boeing astronaut Christopher Ferguson and NASA crewmates Nicole Mann and Mike Fincke, is planned for the fall timeframe.
> 
> If those flights go well, operational U.S. crew rotation flights could begin before the end of the year.
> 
> The final currently contracted U.S. Soyuz flight is scheduled for launch in July. Given the ever-present possibility of unexpected problems with the commercial crew ships, NASA is studying an option of purchasing two additional Soyuz seats, one for use in the fall and the other next spring.
> 
> SpaceX currently holds NASA contracts valued at $3.04 billion for 20 space station resupply flights and another contract for an unspecified amount for at least six additional flights through 2024.
> 
> SpaceX also holds a $2.6 billion NASA contract to build and launch a piloted version of its Dragon cargo capsule. Boeing won a $4.2 billion contract to build the CST-100.


The meme lord himself Elon Musk and SpaceX have been cleared to test an unpiloted commercial ferry ship in March :mark:. Pretty damn big news. Commercial flights to space hopefully will become an inch closer to reality .


----------



## Reaper

Yup


----------



## Mifune Jackson

CamillePunk said:


> Yang doesn't seem to be playing the identity politics game as much from what I've seen of him. Could be wrong.
> 
> Can't imagine supporting Bernie over Tulsi, honestly. :lol They have pretty much the same policies, Tulsi just isn't a spineless self-hating cuck like Bernie is.


Yeah, she's the best of the Democratic crop of candidates (which, I know, isn't saying much), and in Intersectional World, the Kamala supporters (who will be the new Hillary supporters) can't use the sexism excuse against people who support Tulsi. 

They're already trying to smear Tulsi because her father was anti-LGBT (Translation: didn't support gay marraige in the 80's or whatever), and are claiming she's pro-Assad because she wants to go after actual terrorists in Syria, not do a regime change.

Even if I won't vote Democrat in the general, I'll probably vote for her in the primary because she's the one they clearly don't want to win it.


----------



## virus21

But we were told that $15 an hour was a good thing for people


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> But we were told that $15 an hour was a good thing for people


Someone get me a white beard, a staff and robe because I must be a prophet because I predicted this would happen. Nobody found it suspicious that many fast found chains are going with kiosks, self-service and few workers?

A machine is cheaper and more reliable than human labor. If I was running a store I'd want less human workers, especially in fast food. :laugh:

Automation is coming, this 15 dollar an hour thing was a blessing in disguise, will push automation faster and ensure only the best workers stay and get paid. :clap



CamillePunk said:


> Yang doesn't seem to be playing the identity politics game as much from what I've seen of him. Could be wrong.
> 
> Can't imagine supporting Bernie over Tulsi, honestly. :lol They have pretty much the same policies, Tulsi just isn't a spineless self-hating cuck like Bernie is.


Yang or Tulsi is who I'm voting for, Yang seems to have a much better platform, knows automation is a reality and wants to focus on more technical education. He's insanely smart.

That's why he won't be elected, we're America, we hate smart people, we bitch about too many white politicians and yet hey, let's vote for Bernie! The guy who cowed to Hillary. Let's not vote for the woman or minority who are actually better candidates. 

The focus on "Free Education" is where it's at, not better or more technical education. That we can pump out more people with useless degrees who will be in the unemployment line or bag my groceries, well until robots do that too. :laugh:


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

virus21 said:


> But we were told that $15 an hour was a good thing for people


This is the thing I never understood about the minimum wage argument:

At what point is it acceptable to say "That person should be working for more than minimum wage anyway"

It feels like that is never answered.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Someone get me a white beard, a staff and robe because I must be a prophet because I predicted this would happen. Nobody found it suspicious that many fast found chains are going with kiosks, self-service and few workers?
> 
> A machine is cheaper and more reliable than human labor. If I was running a store I'd want less human workers, especially in fast food. :laugh:
> 
> Automation is coming, this 15 dollar an hour thing was a blessing in disguise, will push automation faster and ensure only the best workers stay and get paid. :clap
> 
> 
> 
> Yang or Tulsi is who I'm voting for, Yang seems to have a much better platform, knows automation is a reality and wants to focus on more technical education. He's insanely smart.
> 
> That's why he won't be elected, we're America, we hate smart people, we bitch about too many white politicians and yet hey, let's vote for Bernie! The guy who cowed to Hillary. Let's not vote for the woman or minority who are actually better candidates.
> 
> The focus on "Free Education" is where it's at, not better or more technical education. That we can pump out more people with useless degrees who will be in the unemployment line or bag my groceries, well until robots do that too. :laugh:


Oh please, its al bullsit.

They can afford to pay them $15 an hour


Look at Blizzard, they made record earnings then fired 800 staff members

ATT has been doing the same thing last year.

Its just about greed


----------



## Stephen90

CNN really hates Bernie. Love the major dislikes this video is getting.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh please, its al bullsit.
> 
> They can afford to pay them $15 an hour
> 
> 
> Look at Blizzard, they made record earnings then fired 800 staff members
> 
> ATT has been doing the same thing last year.
> 
> Its just about greed


Blizzard is hiring people for a lot more than $15 an hour, and I know personally At&T hires for more than that part time, and gives medical benefits to even part time employees.

Aren't those companies doing what you ask of them?


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Blizzard is hiring people for a lot more than $15 an hour, and I know personally At&T hires for more than that part time, and gives medical benefits to even part time employees.
> 
> Aren't those companies doing what you ask of them?


what is your point? The point is, companies that have record profits still lay off people. It has nothing to do with oh a billion dollar fast food company paid people $15 and because of that had to lay people off, its just a bullshit excuse. Even if they didn't give them those raises they still would have laid them off.

They just use that as an excuse to not pay people a proper wage


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> what is your point? The point is, companies that have record profits still lay off people.


Yeah, like this is common sense, hence why I was wondering why you picked two companies like this isn't an everyday occurrence.

The article was about fast food workers, why would you knock two companies, who despite layoffs are offering things you believe are warranted



> It has nothing to do with oh a billion dollar fast food company paid people $15 and because of that had to lay people off, its just a bullshit excuse. Even if they didn't give them those raises they still would have laid them off.
> 
> They just use that as an excuse to not pay people a proper wage


I will ask you what i doubt you are willing to answer:

At what point is it acceptable to say a person should be making more than minimum wage, I would think by the time you are 18, or 22, you should at least have a job where the goal is higher than minimum wage, no?


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yeah, like this is common sense, hence why I was wondering why you picked two companies like this isn't an everyday occurrence.
> 
> The article was about fast food workers, why would you knock two companies, who despite layoffs are offering things you believe are warranted
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what i doubt you are willing to answer:
> 
> At what point is it acceptable to say a person should be making more than minimum wage, I would think by the time you are 18, or 22, you should at least have a job where the goal is higher than minimum wage, no?


You are acting like these workers were laid off because they got $15 an hour, like I said that is just an excuse, they would have been laid off anyway. They were not laid off because they couldn't afford to pay them. The fast-food company still makes millions. 

A lot of entry-level jobs offer min. wage. You could have a data entry job and make minimum wage. If companies were not so cheap and didn't want to pay their workers a decent wage we wouldn't have to worry about a min. wage. Because you are right if you are 22 or older, you shouldn't get stuck having to work for min. wage.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100190585330323457
Boy she seems like an especially flawed candidate.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

Unaired Tucker Carlson (Fox) interview out of Davos

When the mask comes off of a right wing propagandist.

clip starts at 3:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5esZJelWSpA


----------



## Strike Force

CamillePunk said:


> Boy she seems like an especially flawed candidate.


She (Warren) most certainly is. If my boy Joe Biden jumps in, he'll run her into the ground by the end of the second debate. She's not nearly as smart as she thinks she is and is a chip off the Official Hillary Clinton Block of Unlikeable Shrews.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> You are acting like these workers were laid off because they got $15 an hour, like I said that is just an excuse, they would have been laid off anyway. They were not laid off because they couldn't afford to pay them. The fast-food company still makes millions.


Eh, I think you just used 2 bad examples. I simply asked that these companies pay way above $15/hr (Blizzard is hiring for QA testers starting at $20/hr, which is essentially a job to play video games) and AT&T has jobs starting at way more than that.

Companies fire people all the time, for tons of bullshit reasons, Blizzard's isn't as BS as you would think, but that is another argument for another part of the forum.



> A lot of entry-level jobs offer min. wage. You could have a data entry job and make minimum wage. If companies were not so cheap and didn't want to pay their workers a decent wage we wouldn't have to worry about a min. wage. Because you are right if you are 22 or older, you shouldn't get stuck having to work for min. wage.


So what are we arguing about essentially?

A 25 year old shouldn't be working as a fry cook at Burger King, yet the people on the front lines of this $15 an hour minimum all seem to have the same story.

I have no problem a company like Amazon, who hires for hard labor, and older people to make a minimum of $15 an hour, because most people going there are looking to start on a career.

But I disagree with fast food chains, and big box retailers like Wal-Mart being forced to pay it, because I don't think you waving hi and bye to me is worth $15 an hour.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

DMD Mofomagic said:


> But I disagree with fast food chains, and big box retailers like Wal-Mart being forced to pay it, because *I don't think you waving hi and bye to me is worth $15 an hour.*


I would say that's worth a helluva lot more than $15/hr... just kidding. Had to do it. Easy lay-up.

Most of the Wal-Mart greeters are senior citizens who worked their whole lives, still have to work, but have very very limited job opportunities. I have no problem with them getting $15/hr. They deserve it.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

GrumpyHawk said:


> I would say that's worth a helluva lot more than $15/hr... just kidding. Had to do it. Easy lay-up.


LMAO, you're not wrong.



> Most of the Wal-Mart greeters are senior citizens who worked their whole lives, still have to work, but have very very limited job opportunities. I have no problem with them getting $15/hr. They deserve it.


Yeah, it sucks about seniors.

The system for them is broken more than anyone else IMO, it is ridiculous how they get treated.

You could look into a sliding scale like that, but I have to imagine someone would claim discrimination


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Eh, I think you just used 2 bad examples. I simply asked that these companies pay way above $15/hr (Blizzard is hiring for QA testers starting at $20/hr, which is essentially a job to play video games) and AT&T has jobs starting at way more than that.
> 
> Companies fire people all the time, for tons of bullshit reasons, Blizzard's isn't as BS as you would think, but that is another argument for another part of the forum.
> 
> 
> 
> So what are we arguing about essentially?
> 
> A 25 year old shouldn't be working as a fry cook at Burger King, yet the people on the front lines of this $15 an hour minimum all seem to have the same story.
> 
> I have no problem a company like Amazon, who hires for hard labor, and older people to make a minimum of $15 an hour, because most people going there are looking to start on a career.
> 
> But I disagree with fast food chains, and big box retailers like Wal-Mart being forced to pay it, because I don't think you waving hi and bye to me is worth $15 an hour.


Let me ask you, you say big box stores like Wal-Mart should not be forced to pay 15 an hour but when you go to stores like Wal-Mart or best buy or any other big box store, do you just see kids under 20 working there?

No you see adults working there as their full-time jobs. You don't think they should be getting at least $15 an hour?


----------



## CamillePunk

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-mary-ann-lisanti-racial-slur-prince-georges-county



> Maryland Del. Mary Ann Lisanti accused of using racial slur to refer to PG County
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — A white Maryland lawmaker accused of using a racial slur for black people to refer to a legislative district has apologized to leaders of the state's Legislative Black Caucus.
> 
> Del. Mary Ann Lisanti allegedly used the slur to refer to Prince George's County during an after-hours gathering at an Annapolis cigar bar.
> 
> Caucus chair Del. Darryl Barnes, a fellow Democrat from Prince George's County, tells The Washington Post that she appeared contrite when confronted Monday night, but said she didn't "remember fully what happened."
> 
> House Speaker Michael E. Busch called on the Harford County Democrat to "face the consequences of her behavior."
> 
> Lisanti didn't return calls for comment. She told the Post earlier this month that she didn't recall using the slur, but was "sure everyone has used it."


Well hey, at least these Democrats aren't using secret "dog whistles". :banderas


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099539095636926464
Bribing the black vote by offering something that you know will never, ever happen (and shouldn't). :draper2


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Let me ask you, you say big box stores like Wal-Mart should not be forced to pay 15 an hour but when you go to stores like Wal-Mart or best buy or any other big box store, do you just see kids under 20 working there?
> 
> No you see adults working there as their full-time jobs. You don't think they should be getting at least $15 an hour?


Funny you should mention that.

i worked at Best buy in 1997, and was making more than minimum wage then, i was also a teenager then.

I worked with mostly kids who were around my age (17-25) and most of the older people were in management.

We had an old guy named Joe who was a retiree that came by on Christmas, and then kept the job, and when I saw him 4 years later he was managing the store.

That story was completely off topic, I know, so I will answer your question.

I think people should do what they feel is best for themselves in any situation, and that everyone else should stop telling others what makes people unhappy.

No person is right now saying "Man I want to be a cashier at Wal_mart when I grow up" if you take that job as a career path and stay in it for 5+ years, no i don't think you should be rewarded for that.

Wal-mart management makes rally good money, we are talking 6 figures, and with the obvious overturn in the company, you don't have to extremely proficient at your job, so I have a hard time feeling sorry for the 30 year old fry cook who can't afford his apartment and iPhone

In other words: No, I don't think there should be a $15/hr minimum at those stores


----------



## 2 Ton 21

I wrote out this long response about some people that work those jobs do so to get by until another one opens in their chosen field and how they still need enough to get by and how even the lifers at those jobs still need to live.

Then I realized we've had this conversation on here a thousand times and I'm not changing anyone's mind. We just keep going in circles. Nothing changes. We keep arguing over the same things, but neither side feels like they get what they want. The left thinks the rights controls everything and they never win. The right thinks the left controls everything and they never win. Nobody thinks their side is making a dent in making the world the way they want it to be and that the other side is just running away with it.

Truth is, none of us on the ground, on either side, is winning. We're all just losing in a different way.


----------



## CamillePunk

I don't think being a cashier or greeter at wal-mart is the kind of job where someone should be able to have their own apt/house simply for working it. If a 16 year old can do it, you don't deserve to get paid more for doing it just because you're older.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> I don't think being a cashier or greeter at wal-mart is the kind of job where someone should be able to have their own apt/house simply for working it. If a 16 year old can do it, you don't deserve to get paid more for doing it just because you're older.


And here I go jumping in after what I just posted. I'm an idiot.

But it's not just about being older. A 16-year old can do it, but not at 10:30 a.m. , unless they're a dropout. Businesses need adults in these jibs to operate at regular business hours and in some cases like Wal-Mart 24 hours. If it was just 16-year olds then most businesses would be open 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

A child used to be able to do a job on a factory line, but that doesn't mean an adult working in a factory doesn't deserve to be paid enough to live.


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> And here I go jumping in after what I just posted. I'm an idiot.
> 
> But it's not just about being older. A 16-year old can do it, but not at 10:30 a.m. , unless they're a dropout. Businesses need adults in these jibs to operate at regular business hours and in some cases like Wal-Mart 24 hours. If it was just 16-year olds then most businesses would be open 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
> 
> A child used to be able to do a job on a factory line, but *that doesn't mean an adult working in a factory doesn't deserve to be paid enough to live.*


Pretty big difference between "living" and having an apartment or house all to yourself. Renting rooms is a thing. I've done it for most of my adult life. There's nothing wrong with it, and I don't see how anyone is entitled to more simply for doing a menial job.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> Pretty big difference between "living" and having an apartment or house all to yourself. Renting rooms is a thing. I've done it for most of my adult life. There's nothing wrong with it, and I don't see how anyone is entitled to more simply for doing a menial job.


What do you consider a menial job? Just any that you don't need a degree or certification for?


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> What do you consider a menial job? Just any that you don't need a degree or certification for?


No, there are a lot of jobs that you don't need a degree or certification for that pay a lot more than the minimum wage, or even $15 an hour. Jobs like greeter or cashier where anyone of any reasonable intelligence can do them with zero difficulty and minimal training are not among them, and I don't see why they should or would be. Making it more expensive to hire people to do menial tasks doesn't mean the same people doing those jobs now would still get to do them, just for more pay. It means those jobs will disappear or be automated, and those people will be out of work. It'll also mean that young people will find it harder to get low level jobs to build experience and skills without a degree or certification, which take time and resources to acquire.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> No, there are a lot of jobs that you don't need a degree or certification for that pay a lot more than the minimum wage, or even $15 an hour. Jobs like greeter or cashier where anyone of any reasonable intelligence can do them with zero difficulty and minimal training are not among them, and I don't see why they should or would be. Making it more expensive to hire people to do menial tasks doesn't mean the same people doing those jobs now would still get to do them, just for more pay. It means those jobs will disappear or be automated, and those people will be out of work. It'll also mean that young people will find it harder to get low level jobs to build experience and skills without a degree or certification, which take time and resources to acquire.


I disagree with you on some things here, but I appreciate seeing your side of this.

Let's pivot. 

The people that are above 20 and doing menial jobs; if not by raising the minimum wage, what do you think the solution is to getting the majority of them into higher paying jobs?


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> I disagree with you on some things here, but I appreciate seeing your side of this.
> 
> Let's pivot.
> 
> The people that are above 20 and doing menial jobs; if not by raising the minimum wage, what do you think the solution is to getting the majority of them into higher paying jobs?


It's their problem to solve on an individual level, it's not the government's responsibility to help someone find a job, or a better job, or help them negotiate their wage/salary, etc. This isn't supposed to be a country where people are dependent on the government. We should have less dependence, not more.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> It's their problem to solve on an individual level, it's not the government's responsibility to help someone find a job, or a better job, or help them negotiate their wage/salary, etc. This isn't supposed to be a country where people are dependent on the government. We should have less dependence, not more.


O.K. but the population of the working poor and those living paycheck to paycheck keeps growing. I get that you feel the government shouldn't be the ones to step in, but at some point if those numbers keep growing we're going to have a large population of people living on the bare minimum. That usually doesn't turn out well. It seems like just hoping they'll improve their lot in life on their own is kind of a pipe dream.

How do you feel about the workers unionizing with no government intervention?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Trump gets credit and flack for high or low unemployment figures respectively - it's their job to create jobs. That figures in highly here.


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> O.K. but the population of the working poor and those living paycheck to paycheck keeps growing. I get that you feel the government shouldn't be the ones to step in, but at some point if those numbers keep growing we're going to have a large population of people living on the bare minimum. That usually doesn't turn out well. It seems like just hoping they'll improve their lot in life on their own is kind of a pipe dream.
> 
> How do you feel about the workers unionizing with no government intervention?


Private unions are fine with me.

A lot of the people who self-report "living paycheck to paycheck" are actually nowhere close to poor, they're just financially irresponsible. That statistic also comes from a voluntary survey, which means people who are more vocal about their financial situation are more likely to respond. I don't believe the financial irresponsibility of some creates any kind of obligation for others. Doesn't mean we shouldn't help people, but I definitely don't agree with the government getting involved as that introduces force to a situation where it is not justified. So those people should definitely learn some financial planning and start making better decisions. 

The best solution policy-wise would be to shrink the size of the state and abandon our imperialist foreign policy, so that people are paying less in taxes and corporations have less power to wield, creating more competition and thus more opportunities and leverage for workers in the labor market.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Funny you should mention that.
> 
> i worked at Best buy in 1997, and was making more than minimum wage then, i was also a teenager then.
> 
> I worked with mostly kids who were around my age (17-25) and most of the older people were in management.
> 
> We had an old guy named Joe who was a retiree that came by on Christmas, and then kept the job, and when I saw him 4 years later he was managing the store.
> 
> That story was completely off topic, I know, so I will answer your question.
> 
> I think people should do what they feel is best for themselves in any situation, and that everyone else should stop telling others what makes people unhappy.
> 
> No person is right now saying "Man I want to be a cashier at Wal_mart when I grow up" if you take that job as a career path and stay in it for 5+ years, no i don't think you should be rewarded for that.
> 
> Wal-mart management makes rally good money, we are talking 6 figures, and with the obvious overturn in the company, you don't have to extremely proficient at your job, so I have a hard time feeling sorry for the 30 year old fry cook who can't afford his apartment and iPhone
> 
> In other words: No, I don't think there should be a $15/hr minimum at those stores


I love how you look down at people who work at retail jobs

Just shows what kind of person you are.

also the average best buy pay in MA is 11-13 an hour. Min wage in MA is 11 an hour.


----------



## Miss Sally

It's not a question of if a Company can pay more but why would they?

There's no incentive for the Company to pay more. If I was running a business and I was forced to pay 15 dollar minimum wage I'd be firing half my Employees. 

Keep the half that works hard, work them harder, replace the ones fired with machines or software that makes them obsolete.

They shouldn't feel bad, once AI is able to run fully, many wall street, tech workers etc will be fired too!

I certainly don't agree with this morally but it's going to happen. We might as well get used to the fact that as the population grows we'll have more and more people out of work, especially in the low skill areas. 

(Yet population decline is a bad thing) 8*D

Didn't people laugh about the whole "Dey took our jobs" joke? Haha, it's funny because more jobs are moving overseas, factory work is going to illegals for slave labor and even tech jobs are getting gobbled up by foreign workers and soon, machines! Haha, are people still laughing? :lmao


----------



## GrumpyHawk

Miss Sally said:


> It's not a question of if a Company can pay more but why would they?
> 
> There's no incentive for the Company to pay more. If I was running a business and I was forced to pay 15 dollar minimum wage I'd be firing half my Employees.
> 
> Keep the half that works hard, work them harder, replace the ones fired with machines or software that makes them obsolete.
> 
> They shouldn't feel bad, once AI is able to run fully, many wall street, tech workers etc will be fired too!
> 
> I certainly don't agree with this morally but it's going to happen. We might as well get used to the fact that as the population grows we'll have more and more people out of work, especially in the low skill areas.
> 
> (Yet population decline is a bad thing) 8*D
> 
> Didn't people laugh about the whole "Dey took our jobs" joke? Haha, it's funny because more jobs are moving overseas, factory work is going to illegals for slave labor and even tech jobs are getting gobbled up by foreign workers and soon, machines! Haha, are people still laughing? :lmao


The unemployment rate in the USA is as low as it has ever been. The problem is not a lack of jobs, the problem is low paying jobs, while companies make record profits.
The automation of jobs has been continuously ongoing ever since the inception of the industrial revolution. In my opinion the innovation capabilities of the Silicon Valley, big tech, companies is over-hyped. Silicon Valley has yet to really produce any ground breaking technology, outside of piggybacking off of government R & D.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you look down at people who work at retail jobs
> 
> Just shows what kind of person you are.


No it doesn't because I never even implied that I "look down at people who work retail"

Considering that in the post you quoted, i mentioned how I used to work in retail (and did until i was 26 making a lucrative career out of it)

And mentioned how you can make above average money in a lot of those places in a short time frame, as opposed to the corporate world which takes a lot longer, and much more politicking.

Maybe it was the fry cook comment but considering you said this earlier:



> Because you are right if you are 22 or older, you shouldn't get stuck having to work for min. wage.


Means that you understand a 30 year old fry cook making minimum wage is not something to be looked upon as a positive. 



> also the average best buy pay in MA is 11-13 an hour. Min wage in MA is 11 an hour.


I don't care that is the starting wage for Best Buy in MA, it has nothing to do with the overall point.

Do you believe a person should go into Best buy looking to be a floor employee for the duration of their career?

Justify to me how that makes sense that someone's overall goal in life is to stock video games all day.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you look down at people who work at retail jobs
> 
> Just shows what kind of person you are.
> 
> also the average best buy pay in MA is 11-13 an hour. Min wage in MA is 11 an hour.


You seem to forget what you said about lowering taxes and how people in the middle to lower class were only saving "peanuts" and therefore it wasn't worth it to give it to them. You're also the same guy who thinks poor people are so poor they can't afford ID in order to vote. :lol

You also have no clue how minimum wage works either and you show it time and time again


----------



## Miss Sally

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1096413347988295680


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> No it doesn't because I never even implied that I "look down at people who work retail"
> 
> Considering that in the post you quoted, i mentioned how I used to work in retail (and did until i was 26 making a lucrative career out of it)
> 
> And mentioned how you can make above average money in a lot of those places in a short time frame, as opposed to the corporate world which takes a lot longer, and much more politicking.
> 
> Maybe it was the fry cook comment but considering you said this earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> Means that you understand a 30 year old fry cook making minimum wage is not something to be looked upon as a positive.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care that is the starting wage for Best Buy in MA, it has nothing to do with the overall point.
> 
> Do you believe a person should go into Best buy looking to be a floor employee for the duration of their career?
> 
> Justify to me how that makes sense that someone's overall goal in life is to stock video games all day.



You are right its not a positive a fry cook is making min. wage, they should be making more. Thanks for proving my point.

Yes the starting wage for BB in MA has to do with the overall point but it does not fit your agenda so you want to ignore it

I see nothing wrong if someone wants to have a career as a floor employee, there is nothing wrong with that. Again you keep proving what kind of person you are by looking down at people that do that.

I don't have to justify anything about people that want to do that. Again it just shows how you look down on the ones that do






Stinger Fan said:


> You seem to forget what you said about lowering taxes and how people in the middle to lower class were only saving "peanuts" and therefore it wasn't worth it to give it to them. You're also the same guy who thinks poor people are so poor they can't afford ID in order to vote. :lol
> 
> You also have no clue how minimum wage works either and you show it time and time again


Love how you take things out of context. Post the actual quote.

Again some people cannot afford an ID and the money it takes to travel there. We have been over this a million times.

We are talking about how min. wage SHOULD work not how it does. And min wage SHOULD be a living wage.

But of course once again you lie about what we are talking about


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> You are right its not a positive a fry cook is making min. wage, they should be making more. Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Yes the starting wage for BB in MA has to do with the overall point but it does not fit your agenda so you want to ignore it
> 
> I see nothing wrong if someone wants to have a career as a floor employee, there is nothing wrong with that. Again you keep proving what kind of person you are by looking down at people that do that.
> 
> I don't have to justify anything about people that want to do that. Again it just shows how you look down on the ones that do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love how you take things out of context. Post the actual quote.
> 
> Again some people cannot afford an ID and the money it takes to travel there. We have been over this a million times.
> 
> We are talking about how min. wage SHOULD work not how it does. *And min wage SHOULD be a living wage.*
> 
> But of course once again you lie about what we are talking about


I thought thats what you had been getting at, just wanted to make sure...got a couple questions on this, just to get your input...

Do you think that "livable/minimum" wage would vary from state to state since costs of living vary? $35K can probably go a lot farther in states like Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas, etc than it can in like Hawaii, Connecticut, California, New York, etc...

Also, would you want to see other salaries bumped up with it?? Example...using the fry cook example...say a fry cook makes $8 an hour and their asst manager is making $12 an hour. If you bump the fry cook to $15 thats a $7 increase, would you increase the asst manager up to $15 as well or $19?? (Im just using $15 as a common example, you can sub in whatever figure gets a person to a "livable" wage and use the same difference)

Im worried about motivation from a lot of people in other jobs who, on the national average, make right around or a little less than $15 and required additional schooling or skills in order to take that job such as medical techs, CNAs, or EMT Medics. If they are making similar to someone in a low stress, low skilled job, whats the motivation to go thru the stress of schooling to come out to a very similar paying job thats way more high stress?? I understand there will be some that enjoy the job more than another option and may do it for the prestige, I just feel like there would be a drop in these jobs to work a lower stress job for similar pay.


----------



## CamillePunk

We should have fewer financially irresponsible people voting, not more.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> I thought thats what you had been getting at, just wanted to make sure...got a couple questions on this, just to get your input...
> 
> Do you think that "livable/minimum" wage would vary from state to state since costs of living vary? $35K can probably go a lot farther in states like Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas, etc than it can in like Hawaii, Connecticut, California, New York, etc...
> 
> Also, would you want to see other salaries bumped up with it?? Example...using the fry cook example...say a fry cook makes $8 an hour and their asst manager is making $12 an hour. If you bump the fry cook to $15 thats a $7 increase, would you increase the asst manager up to $15 as well or $19?? (Im just using $15 as a common example, you can sub in whatever figure gets a person to a "livable" wage and use the same difference)
> 
> Im worried about motivation from a lot of people in other jobs who, on the national average, make right around or a little less than $15 and required additional schooling or skills in order to take that job such as medical techs, CNAs, or EMT Medics. If they are making similar to someone in a low stress, low skilled job, whats the motivation to go thru the stress of schooling to come out to a very similar paying job thats way more high stress?? I understand there will be some that enjoy the job more than another option and may do it for the prestige, I just feel like there would be a drop in these jobs to work a lower stress job for similar pay.


Yes a living wage varies from state to state. in some states it will be lower like in the south and others it will be higher like in NY or CA.

Also yes other salaries should be bumped with it. Its a joke in some jobs managers only make 12 bucks an hour 

You could easily offset all of these salaries by giving the CEOS less in bonuses every year. It would all even out.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes a living wage varies from state to state. in some states it will be lower like in the south and others it will be higher like in NY or CA.
> 
> Also yes other salaries should be bumped with it. Its a joke in some jobs managers only make 12 bucks an hour
> 
> You could easily offset all of these salaries by giving the CEOS less in bonuses every year. It would all even out.


Ok thanks for the answers...I have had this discussion with others and they really couldnt explain if everyone should be bumped up equally or bumped to the same amount. 

And yes I agree on the varying living wage. What may be considered a livable wage of $15-$18 or so in one state may have to be closer to $30 in another state. Ha wonder if you could move close to a state line and work in another state...maybe get cheaper real estate in a dif state 15 min away from work.

But what about the motivation part. Say you bump that asst manager to $19 an hour. That doesnt mean other jobs will follow. They may bump a medic up to $18 an hour or so, it may even surpass to around $21 an hour, but would it still be worth it. Why go to the extra schooling and work in a high stress job maybe way worse hours as well, when you could do something that doesnt require the extra training or school to make a similar salary and have way less stress. 

And I can understand where youre coming from on the CEOs. If there is a cap on how low you can go, would you agree with a cap on how high a person's salary could go? Say at X amount of dollars for a CEO salary, anything past that is required to be reinvested into its workers in the form of more money in their checks whether it be a raise per hour or a check at the end of the year like a bonus. Just using CEO as an example like you did, but this could apply to any high ranking, high earning exec in a company.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> You are right its not a positive a fry cook is making min. wage, they should be making more. Thanks for proving my point.


A fry cook at McDonald's should be making more? How much? They should be making $16, $17, $18 an hour? Ok, well this is going nowhere , i honestly think you are just making an argument to save your gimmick.



> Yes the starting wage for BB in MA has to do with the overall point but it does not fit your agenda so you want to ignore it


You tell me what it has to do with it? I just told you the Best Buy in MD starts you above minimum wage, so what does it have to do with what we are talking about?



> I see nothing wrong if someone wants to have a career as a floor employee, there is nothing wrong with that. Again you keep proving what kind of person you are by looking down at people that do that.


Calm down, if you don't see the problem with it, that's fine. I don't believe you, but quite honestly, I don't have to. 

Also I would rather be the person who says "A person can make a good salary even if they just start at a minimum wage job" than the person who says "These people can't help themselves, so someone needs to step in to give them more money"



> I don't have to justify anything about people that want to do that. Again it just shows how you look down on the ones that do


You answered my question, with this answer.

Until next time, I am bored with you now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> A fry cook at McDonald's should be making more? How much? They should be making $16, $17, $18 an hour? Ok, well this is going nowhere , i honestly think you are just making an argument to save your gimmick.
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me what it has to do with it? I just told you the Best Buy in MD starts you above minimum wage, so what does it have to do with what we are talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, if you don't see the problem with it, that's fine. I don't believe you, but quite honestly, I don't have to.
> 
> Also I would rather be the person who says "A person can make a good salary even if they just start at a minimum wage job" than the person who says "These people can't help themselves, so someone needs to step in to give them more money"
> 
> 
> 
> You answered my question, with this answer.
> 
> Until next time, I am bored with you now.


You are bored because you cant make a good argument.

thanks for playing, good to see you taking the loss like a man


----------



## GrumpyHawk

CamillePunk said:


> We should have fewer financially irresponsible people voting, not more.


Every time you see a consumer advertisement, financial irresponsibility is promoted. The propaganda is relentless.

Also, don't forget about the financial irresponsibility of President Trump himself (only the super wealthy can claim bankruptcy multiple times, and remain super wealthy). Or the financial irresponsibility of the Trump government to pass massive tax breaks for the rich, while expanding the military budget, or to further deregulate the financially irresponsible investment banking sector.


----------



## CamillePunk

GrumpyHawk said:


> Every time you see a consumer advertisement, financial irresponsibility is promoted. The propaganda is relentless.


We should have fewer people who deflect blame for their own bad decisions voting as well.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Ok thanks for the answers...I have had this discussion with others and they really couldnt explain if everyone should be bumped up equally or bumped to the same amount.
> 
> And yes I agree on the varying living wage. What may be considered a livable wage of $15-$18 or so in one state may have to be closer to $30 in another state. Ha wonder if you could move close to a state line and work in another state...maybe get cheaper real estate in a dif state 15 min away from work.
> 
> But what about the motivation part. Say you bump that asst manager to $19 an hour. That doesnt mean other jobs will follow. They may bump a medic up to $18 an hour or so, it may even surpass to around $21 an hour, but would it still be worth it. Why go to the extra schooling and work in a high stress job maybe way worse hours as well, when you could do something that doesnt require the extra training or school to make a similar salary and have way less stress.
> 
> And I can understand where youre coming from on the CEOs. If there is a cap on how low you can go, would you agree with a cap on how high a person's salary could go? Say at X amount of dollars for a CEO salary, anything past that is required to be reinvested into its workers in the form of more money in their checks whether it be a raise per hour or a check at the end of the year like a bonus. Just using CEO as an example like you did, but this could apply to any high ranking, high earning exec in a company.


Here is something else people don't think of when they say OMG you think someone should be in their 20s or older making min. wage. No they shouldn't be and that is the point.

I think we can agree jobs like some jobs in the medical field are all vastly underpaid especially considering the billions the medical industry makes 

But here is something that people don't consider when talking about the min. wage. For min. wage jobs after you are working at that job for a few years, the raises you get are crap, usually its like 25-50 cents max per year, like if you are in retail So you can start a min wage job at 7.25 (fed min age) and after a couple of years you could only be at 8 bucks an hour. You think that is ok? And some of those jobs even for a manager job is only like 11 or 12 an hour. That is total BS. 

Maybe the best solution is basing the min wage for a company based on how much they make per year. 

People love to talk about min. wage at jobs like Mc Donalds but its not just McDs that pay min wage, like I said before there are tons of entry-level jobs that want college degrees that pay min wage or very close to it

Like i said before in MA min. wage is $11 an hour and there are tons of entry-level jobs like call centers, or data entry jobs that is only pay $11-12 an hour.

but we have been over this a million times.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

CamillePunk said:


> We should have fewer people who deflect blame for their own bad decisions voting as well.


Where do you think this mindset comes from though?

is it really wrong to just say "hey, maybe they should try a bit harder"

Honestly it isn't even that hard getting a job making $15 an hour, most call centers will hire you for that


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Here is something else people don't think of when they say OMG you think someone should be in their 20s or older making min. wage. No they shouldn't be and that is the point.
> 
> I think we can agree jobs like some jobs in the medical field are all vastly underpaid especially considering the billions the medical industry makes
> 
> But here is something that people don't consider when talking about the min. wage. For min. wage jobs after you are working at that job for a few years, the raises you get are crap, usually its like 25-50 cents max per year, like if you are in retail So you can start a min wage job at 7.25 (fed min age) and after a couple of years you could only be at 8 bucks an hour. You think that is ok? And some of those jobs even for a manager job is only like 11 or 12 an hour. That is total BS.
> 
> Maybe the best solution is basing the min wage for a company based on how much they make per year.
> 
> People love to talk about min. wage at jobs like Mc Donalds but its not just McDs that pay min wage, like I said before there are tons of entry-level jobs that want college degrees that pay min wage or very close to it
> 
> Like i said before in MA min. wage is $11 an hour and there are tons of entry-level jobs like call centers, or data entry jobs that is only pay $11-12 an hour.
> 
> but we have been over this a million times.


YES on the some medical fields are very underpaid. I def believe some of the people in the medical fields are very underpaid.

I can see your point on the min wage and only being give a 25-50 cent bump. I am a teacher and decided to break this down on my end. We get about a $500-$600 bump every year. I figured at $600 (which is the high end) over ten months (not counting summer since we dont work) that comes out to $60 a month or about $15 a week increase. So its less than 50 cents an hour (just figuring 40 hours for work week) that we get every year added to the previous years salary. Only way we see it as a positive and not a slap in the face is I am in my 13th year of teaching, so at a $500 bump every year, my salary has jumped $6500 from year one, that doesnt count the raises that we have received or me getting a masters degree. So it looks good over the years, but it kind of looks like a slap in the face when you break it down by hours. 

And your part on the min wage being based on a company's income is fairly interesting. Would be interested to see the breakdown of salaries from the top to the bottom. Only prob I could see with that would be what if a company bases the first year's salary on the previous years income, say the next year the income falls a lot, could they drop pay for everyone? And same the other way, if income goes up would you want to see bonuses or more per hour?


----------



## GrumpyHawk

CamillePunk said:


> We should have fewer people who deflect blame for their own bad decisions voting as well.


Corporations invest trillions of dollars annually into marketing campaigns because it is incredibly effective at manipulating people into making decisions, they otherwise would not make.
The same tactics are used in every election, very effectively by branding genius Trump. The Obama campaign of 2008 won the major marketing award of that year. It's all a charade though.


----------



## CamillePunk

GrumpyHawk said:


> Corporations invest trillions of dollars annually into marketing campaigns because it is incredibly effective at manipulating people into making decisions, they otherwise would not make.
> The same tactics are used in every election, very effectively by branding genius Trump. The Obama campaign of 2008 won the major marketing award of that year. It's all a charade though.


My reply is the same.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

blaird said:


> And your part on the min wage being based on a company's income is fairly interesting. Would be interested to see the breakdown of salaries from the top to the bottom. Only prob I could see with that would be what if a company bases the first year's salary on the previous years income, say the next year the income falls a lot, could they drop pay for everyone? And same the other way, if income goes up would you want to see bonuses or more per hour?


But then employees will jump ship if the company starts losing money and their wages go down.

The other part of your hypothetical is what to do if an expected decrease is set to happen.

Let's take Blizzard, one of the reasons for the layoffs was they lost Destiny, which is a huge video game franchise.

So even though they did record profits last year, they more than likely won't have these SAME profits next year.

Some companies have and still do what you are talking about, they will give their employees and additional bonus at the end of the year based on their performance and company profits, a lot of that stuff is not publicized, so we don't know if it is happening already


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> YES on the some medical fields are very underpaid. I def believe some of the people in the medical fields are very underpaid.
> 
> I can see your point on the min wage and only being give a 25-50 cent bump. I am a teacher and decided to break this down on my end. We get about a $500-$600 bump every year. I figured at $600 (which is the high end) over ten months (not counting summer since we dont work) that comes out to $60 a month or about $15 a week increase. So its less than 50 cents an hour (just figuring 40 hours for work week) that we get every year added to the previous years salary. Only way we see it as a positive and not a slap in the face is I am in my 13th year of teaching, so at a $500 bump every year, my salary has jumped $6500 from year one, that doesnt count the raises that we have received or me getting a masters degree. So it looks good over the years, but it kind of looks like a slap in the face when you break it down by hours.
> 
> And your part on the min wage being based on a company's income is fairly interesting. Would be interested to see the breakdown of salaries from the top to the bottom. Only prob I could see with that would be what if a company bases the first year's salary on the previous years income, say the next year the income falls a lot, could they drop pay for everyone? And same the other way, if income goes up would you want to see bonuses or more per hour?


It would not drop the pay of anyone, just the min. wage for that company of new people coming in.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

CamillePunk said:


> My reply is the same.


We can lecture people about personal responsibility all day, until we are blue in the face, but it will never amount to any solutions.
The only way to any solution for this problem is to address the foundational institutions, of our society, that promote the values of personal responsibility while simultaneously undermining them with their propaganda.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

GrumpyHawk said:


> We can lecture people about personal responsibility all day, until we are blue in the face, but it will never amount to any solutions.
> 
> The only way to any solution for this problem is to address the foundational institutions, of our society, that promote the values of personal responsibility while simultaneously undermining them with their propaganda.


So at what point does it stop becoming someone else's fault, and we say "Hey, get your shit together"

It seems like everyone is dodging that question


----------



## GrumpyHawk

DMD Mofomagic said:


> So at what point does it stop becoming someone else's fault, and we say "Hey, get your shit together"
> 
> It seems like everyone is dodging that question


For, some, people a stern talking to might help but by that point the damage is already done. Financial responsibility is an epidemic in America. Needs solutions that get to the root of the problem.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

GrumpyHawk said:


> For, some, people a stern talking to might help but by that point the damage is already done. Financial responsibility is an epidemic in America. Needs solutions that get to the root of the problem.


I agree.

I don't understand the idea of how giving people who are bad with money more money to be bad with is a net positive.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I agree.
> 
> I don't understand the idea of how giving people who are bad with money more money to be bad with is a net positive.


People making less than $15/hr are doomed to debt, even if they are perfectly financially responsible. Many of them are. That is why $15/hr is called a living wage. If it was so easy for them to get higher paying jobs, then why don't they just all do it, rather than struggle in poverty? 

I would argue that the massive economic inequality, of our society is the greatest case of financial irresponsibility we face today. Economic growth has been declining simultaneously as inequality and economic instability increases.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

I would argue that just telling someone to get their shit together isn't enough. You need to tell some of them how to do that. There are a lot of people that don't know where to begin or even who to ask. Then there's the pride factor. Some don't want to be made to feel stupid for asking since they're an adult and, according to society, should already know.

Catch a man a fish and he'll eat for the day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life. The problem is for some people, no one is teaching them how to fish and they don't know who to ask or are may be too embarrassed to ask.


----------



## CamillePunk

GrumpyHawk said:


> We can lecture people about personal responsibility all day, until we are blue in the face, but it will never amount to any solutions.
> The only way to any solution for this problem is to address the foundational institutions, of our society, that promote the values of personal responsibility while simultaneously undermining them with their propaganda.


Yeah, and KFC and McDonalds are to blame if you become obese as well, right?  

Damn them and their propaganda. Like they don't know what they're doing, talking about breasts and thighs and nuggets (for those who are into that kind of thing) all the time! :frustrate


----------



## GrumpyHawk

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, and KFC and McDonalds are to blame if you become obese as well, right?
> 
> Damn them and their propaganda. Like they don't know what they're doing, talking about breasts and thighs and nuggets (for those who are into that kind of thing) all the time! :frustrate


Yes, they bare some responsibility. 

There has been an incredible amount of research into consumer psychology. Either overtly or subliminally conflating sexual pleasure with consumerism is just one of the techniques. 

Edit: We are all susceptible to their manipulation. Anyone who thinks they are not, is the most susceptible.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

GrumpyHawk said:


> People making less than $15/hr are doomed to debt, even if they are perfectly financially responsible. Many of them are. That is why $15/hr is called a living wage. If it was so easy for them to get higher paying jobs, then why don't they just all do it, rather than struggle in poverty?


No, they are not. That is depending on where you live and what lifestyle you lead.

My best friend has never made more than $13 an hour, and has his own place.

he rents a room
He has been using the same iPad for years
has a single sling tv account
Works out using household items.

This idea that making extra money will solve your problem is fool's gold. If you don't have the discipline to make it work, then you need to focus on that. But let's not make it sound like $13 an hour means you will be forever broke.



> I would argue that the massive economic inequality, of our society is the greatest case of financial irresponsibility we face today. Economic growth has been declining simultaneously as inequality and economic instability increases.


I hate this argument.

To me, if you focus on what other people are making, all you are doing is taking focus away on what you can be doing to better your situation.

It boggles my mind how many people get so wrapped up into someone else's money, I truly don't understand it.

While social class can get you further faster, it also isn't a pure detriment that puts you as a lifelong prisoner.



2 Ton 21 said:


> I would argue that just telling someone to get their shit together isn't enough. You need to tell some of them how to do that. There are a lot of people that don't know where to begin or even who to ask. Then there's the pride factor. Some don't want to be made to feel stupid for asking since they're an adult and, according to society, should already know.


But that goes back to your situation and how you feel about it.

If you are happy in what you are doing (whether it be stocking video games, or working as the fry cook) then you probably aren't complaining.

but if you are talking about the people who say "We need to make more for being a greeter at Wal-mart", then "well, do X,Y, and Z to get higher" is an appropriate response. 

I have seen people say "I am a cashier who has been working for 8 years, they should pay me more" Is there something wrong telling that person "Take your 8 years of customer service and put it towards this job where you can make $17 an hour"



> Catch a man a fish and he'll eat for the day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life. The problem is for some people, no one is teaching them how to fish and they don't know who to ask or are may be to embarrassed to ask.


And a closed mouth never gets fed.

Rejection is a part of life, it's scary as anything, and will stop you in your tracks.

There is more accessibility to people who are successful than ever to the point you don't even have to interact with them. I am not sure how that can be denied.


----------



## CamillePunk

GrumpyHawk said:


> Yes, they bare some responsibility.
> 
> There has been an incredible amount of research into consumer psychology. Either overtly or subliminally conflating sexual pleasure with consumerism is just one of the techniques.
> 
> Edit: We are all susceptible to their manipulation. Anyone who thinks they are not, is the most susceptible.


Not sure if you realize that by suggesting we are all susceptible you're undermining your own argument. :hmmm


----------



## GrumpyHawk

DMD Mofomagic said:


> No, they are not. That is depending on where you live and what lifestyle you lead.
> 
> My best friend has never made more than $13 an hour, and has his own place.
> 
> he rents a room
> He has been using the same iPad for years
> has a single sling tv account
> Works out using household items.
> 
> This idea that making extra money will solve your problem is fool's gold. If you don't have the discipline to make it work, then you need to focus on that. But let's not make it sound like $13 an hour means you will be forever broke.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate this argument.
> 
> To me, if you focus on what other people are making, all you are doing is taking focus away on what you can be doing to better your situation.
> 
> It boggles my mind how many people get so wrapped up into someone else's money, I truly don't understand it.
> 
> While social class can get you further faster, it also isn't a pure detriment that puts you as a lifelong prisoner.


I would assume your friend is not supporting any dependants (kids, sick parents etc.) or had any major health or general life crises's of his own.

Economic inequality is a symptom of systematic societal inefficiencies, it doesn't matter how financially responsible poor people are. Inequality will remain so long as the economic elite continue to mismanage the greater economy, for their own benefit.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

GrumpyHawk said:


> I would assume your friend is not supporting any dependants (kids, sick parents etc.) or had any major health or general life crises's of his own.


No, he isn't. He doesn't want kids because of the cost and responsibility.

His parents have more than enough money to take care of themselves.

We both grew up in a poor part of MD. 

There are just as many stories like this that don't get publicized. It is infuriating hearing how you talk to people and they try to move the goal posts (well, I know you did it, but....)

Like it is pretty simple, if you don't have kids before you finish high school, graduate high school, and just do a halfway decent job at things, you can not be in poverty.

Like I said, if you start working at Mickey D's at 16, and either work your way up to management, or use the experience to get a decent paying job, it isn't something that is extremely difficult to do.

which goes to my question: When is it acceptable to ask for someone to do more for themselves? My answer is when they start complaining about shit they can control



> Economic inequality is a symptom of systematic societal inefficiencies, it doesn't matter how financially responsible poor people are. Inequality will remain so long as the economic elite continue to mismanage the greater economy, for their own benefit.


I don't know dude, I don't care about things like that. I look at things this way, i got limited time before i go in the dirt, so i am not going to stress about another person's pockets.

Now the nuclear family and social economics, i am there all day for that


----------



## GrumpyHawk

DMD Mofomagic said:


> No, he isn't. He doesn't want kids because of the cost and responsibility.
> 
> His parents have more than enough money to take care of themselves.
> 
> We both grew up in a poor part of MD.
> 
> There are just as many stories like this that don't get publicized. It is infuriating hearing how you talk to people and they try to move the goal posts (well, I know you did it, but....)
> 
> Like it is pretty simple, if you don't have kids before you finish high school, graduate high school, and just do a halfway decent job at things, you can not be in poverty.
> 
> Like I said, if you start working at Mickey D's at 16, and either work your way up to management, or use the experience to get a decent paying job, it isn't something that is extremely difficult to do.
> 
> which goes to my question: When is it acceptable to ask for someone to do more for themselves? My answer is when they start complaining about shit they can control


Minimum wage was much higher relative to inflation during your friend's parents work life. The poor were not nearly as poor back then as now.
Although your friend and his parents seem to have incredible financial management skills, they are lucky to have never had any major health or general life crises's that are financially devastating for many middle class families, even. Also, many poor people are not nearly so lucky as to be born with such good parents. Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr would do a lot for people struggling, as well as the greater economy.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't know dude, I don't care about things like that. I look at things this way, i got limited time before i go in the dirt, so i am not going to stress about another person's pockets.
> 
> Now the nuclear family and social economics, i am there all day for that


Fair enough. I will say though, that, I think, you are missing out on many of the best parts of the experience of life.



CamillePunk said:


> Not sure if you realize that by suggesting we are all susceptible you're undermining your own argument. :hmmm


How so? A person being susceptible to manipulation from propaganda does not mean they are currently being manipulated?

P.S. sorry for the triple post. I was not sure how to combine multiple quotes into one post at the time.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Example: I have a chronic disease which limits my career prospects as it means I just can't do higher paid jobs that require more physical effort for example. The little amount of any disposable money I have goes in to treatment for that. Any benefits I may receive for my illness are not nearly enough to really change anything as my medicine or treatment is so expensive. I literally am living paycheck to paycheck.

Replace the above with being a carer looking after a sick family member, who for obvious reasons is living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to simply improve their career prospects as they can't .

Or a wife that needs to flee her home due to domestic violence, turning her world upside down and limiting her finances all of a sudden.

Are all these examples people who are financially irresponsible?

I know these are simplified cases but I just hate this attitude some have that basically anyone poor or struggling between paychecks is simply either too lazy or ignorant, or just have poor financial skills. They have no idea about people's potential roadblocks they can't change and are just happy to make sweeping judgements.


----------



## skypod

yeahbaby! said:


> Example: I have a chronic disease which limits my career prospects as it means I just can't do higher paid jobs that require more physical effort for example. The little amount of any disposable money I have goes in to treatment for that. Any benefits I may receive for my illness are not nearly enough to really change anything as my medicine or treatment is so expensive. I literally am living paycheck to paycheck.
> 
> Replace the above with being a carer looking after a sick family member, who for obvious reasons is living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to simply improve their career prospects as they can't .
> 
> Or a wife that needs to flee her home due to domestic violence, turning her world upside down and limiting her finances all of a sudden.
> 
> Are all these examples people who are financially irresponsible?
> 
> I know these are simplified cases but I just hate this attitude some have that basically anyone poor or struggling between paychecks is simply either too lazy or ignorant, or just have poor financial skills. They have no idea about people's potential roadblocks they can't change and are just happy to make sweeping judgements.



You're going to get responses like "look for Go Fund Mes" or "talk to your local church". They don't believe in any sort of safety net because all bad circumstances and events, illnesses happen to bad people in their eyes.

Someone the next town over who is bankrupted by cancer treatment has brought it own themselves. People lining the halls in country hospitals are all lazy underachievers and probably drug addicts. 

You need to face that you live in a country with a large amount of miserable cunts who want to step over their fellow man to climb to the top to buy expensive consumerist products.


----------



## yeahbaby!

skypod said:


> You're going to get responses like "look for Go Fund Mes" or "talk to your local church". They don't believe in any sort of safety net because all bad circumstances and events, illnesses happen to bad people in their eyes.
> 
> Someone the next town over who is bankrupted by cancer treatment has brought it own themselves. People lining the halls in country hospitals are all lazy underachievers and probably drug addicts.
> 
> You need to face that you live in a country with a large amount of miserable cunts who want to step over their fellow man to climb to the top to buy expensive consumerist products.


Well I have to spend most of my small paycheck raising my child. Oh, I shouldn't have had it then you say? Well it happened actually because the condom broke, then the father skipped town, and I was going to consider abortion, but the conservative churchies made me traumatically ashamed and talked me out of quote "killing my baby" - now they're nowhere to be found when I need their real help....


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

GrumpyHawk said:


> Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr would do a lot for people struggling, as well as the greater economy.


raising the minimum wage will only inflate the currency and increase the price of goods and services. nobody gains any ground that way. if you want to improve the economy you need to _decrease_ the cost of goods and services.

the harder you make it to operate a small business, the worse it is for the economy. because when there are more businesses thriving and competing, that's when prices come down.


----------



## deepelemblues

skypod said:


> You're going to get responses like "look for Go Fund Mes" or "talk to your local church". They don't believe in any sort of safety net because all bad circumstances and events, illnesses happen to bad people in their eyes.
> 
> Someone the next town over who is bankrupted by cancer treatment has brought it own themselves. People lining the halls in country hospitals are all lazy underachievers and probably drug addicts.
> 
> You need to face that you live in a country with a large amount of miserable cunts who want to step over their fellow man to climb to the top to buy expensive consumerist products.


Of course there's miserable cunts everywhere, who make shit up and claim that's the way entire groups of other people are, because they can't deal with those other people on their own terms. They unload a steaming pile of bigotry because it makes them feel better and means they don't have to think, they can just hate on the fantasy bad people they made up in their head to hate on 

Hint 

Hint

Let's break it down



> You're going to get responses like "look for Go Fund Mes"


Surely you can point to some such responses that you have seen before. Since you're generalizing, surely there must be some large number you can point to

And Go Fund Me is an excellent option to try to get help that didn't exist until a short time ago. Lots of people have gotten help they needed thanks to starting a Go Fund Me. Why you hatin' on it?



> or "talk to your local church".


Another excellent option to try to get help. You think the church is gonna say fuck off and die? No, it will try to help. Lots of people get help from churches. Why you hatin' on it?



> They don't believe in any sort of safety net because all bad circumstances and events, illnesses happen to bad people in their eyes.


Who are these people? Can you name some? Quote them? Show that they are more than some weird remnant of the Puritans? Did you even know that Puritanism/Calvinism is where that perspective comes from? Probably not. What world do you live in where such people are numerous and influential? Not the real world, that's for certain



> Someone the next town over who is bankrupted by cancer treatment has brought it own themselves.


Who? Where? When? Numbers? Data? Anything? Who says this? When did they say it? Where did they say it? Do they exist in numbers worth noticing anywhere but between your ears?



> People lining the halls in country hospitals are all lazy underachievers and probably drug addicts.


Who? Where? When? Numbers? Data? Anything? Who says this? When did they say it? Where did they say it? Do they exist in numbers worth noticing anywhere but between your ears?



> You need to face that you live in a country with a large amount of miserable cunts who want to step over their fellow man to climb to the top to buy expensive consumerist products.


You mean the most charitable nation that exists or has ever existed? Interesting take. Did I say interesting? I meant ignorant, bigoted and hateful


----------



## CamillePunk

Another chapter in the KKK Governor of Virginia story:

https://wjla.com/news/local/virginias-first-lady-accused-of-handing-out-cotton-to-black-students



> Virginia's first lady accused of handing out cotton to black students on mansion tour
> 
> RICHMOND, Va. (ABC7) — The Commonwealth's most powerful family is in the spotlight, again, after new allegations surrounding yet another racist incident.
> 
> The Commonwealth's first lady, Pam Northam, has been accused of handing out balls of cotton to black students during a tour of the governor's residence, according to the Washington Post. The first lady also asked the students on the tour to 'imagine being slaves.'
> 
> “The Governor and Mrs. Northam have asked the residents of the Commonwealth to forgive them for their racially insensitive past actions,” said Leah Dozier Walker to the Post. Walker oversees the Office of Equity and Community Engagement at the state Education Department.
> 
> “But the actions of Mrs. Northam, just last week, do not lead me to believe that this Governor’s office has taken seriously the harm and hurt they have caused African Americans in Virginia or that they are deserving of our forgiveness,” she wrote.
> 
> Her husband, Gov. Ralph Northam, became under fire at the beginning of February when racist photos -- including a man in blackface and another in a Ku Klux Klan oufit -- surfaced from a 1984 medical school yearbook.
> 
> Gov. Northam, originally taking responsibility for the photo, declined a day later stating that he wasn't dressed as neither in photo; he later stated he darkened his face to imitate singer Michael Jackson in a dance contest later that same year.
> 
> First Lady Northam issused a statement shortly after the Washington Post's report was published, stating:
> 
> As First Lady, I have worked over the course of the last year to begin telling the full story of the Executive Mansion, which has mainly centered on Virginia's governors. The Historic Kitchen should be a feature of Executive Mansion tours, and I believe it does a disservice to Virginians to omit the stories of the enslaved people who lived and worked there--that's why I have been engaged in an effort to thoughtfully and honestly share this important story since I arrived in Richmond. I have provided the same educational tour to Executive Mansion visitors over the last few months and used a variety of artifacts and agricultural crops with the intention of illustrating a painful period of Virginia history. I regret that I have upset anyone. I am still committed to chronicling the important history of the Historic Kitchen, and will continue to engage historians and experts on the best way to do so in the future.
> 
> The tour, which took place on Feb. 21, is a traditional gathering of about 100 young people who served as pages during the state Senate session, which wrapped up that weekend.


:heston 

Can you even imagine if this was a Republican, or god forbid someone connected to Trump? :lol


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> Well I have to spend most of my small paycheck raising my child. Oh, I shouldn't have had it then you say? Well it happened actually because the condom broke, then the father skipped town, and I was going to consider abortion, but the conservative churchies made me traumatically ashamed and talked me out of quote "killing my baby" - now they're nowhere to be found when I need their real help....


uh, be more careful about who you decide to have children with? maybe marry the person first and ensure there's an actual bond between the two of you?

don't you think it's pretty immoral to not only bring a child into an unstable situation, but to then demand that _others_ pay your way because you made an immoral decision?

in the example you provided it sounds like the person made a choice to keep the child. well they have to live with that choice. if that means sacrificing everything for your child then so be it. you aren't entitled to a child AND a middle class lifestyle.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/mcrae-dowless-indicted.html



> *North Carolina Operative Indicted in Connection With Absentee Voter Fraud*
> 
> The North Carolina political operative who oversaw a fraud-ridden voter-turnout effort on behalf of a Republican congressional candidate was arrested on Wednesday, a prosecutor said, after a grand jury accused him of a series of felonies.
> 
> The campaign contractor, L. McCrae Dowless Jr., was among five people charged in Wake County, N.C., in connection with misconduct related to absentee ballots. The prosecutions were a vigorous legal backlash against a rare instance of election fraud and cast a still-darkening shadow over North Carolina, where state regulators recently ordered a new election in the Ninth District after finding that Mr. Dowless had orchestrated an illicit scheme for Mark Harris, the Republican candidate.
> 
> “These indictments should serve as a stern warning to anyone trying to defraud elections in North Carolina,” Kim Strach, the executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said in a statement.
> 
> The charges that were unsealed on Wednesday were not tied to the 2018 general election, which investigators are still examining and which Mr. Harris once appeared to have won by 905 votes. Instead, this week’s indictments were linked to an election in 2016, when Mr. Dowless worked for a different candidate, and the 2018 primary, when he was effectively on the Harris campaign’s payroll.
> 
> But the indictments describe many of the same activities that investigators believe played out last fall, when Mr. Harris was locked in a tight race with Dan McCready, the Democratic nominee. Mr. Dowless, for instance, was accused of directing his associates to harvest absentee ballots from voters and instructing workers to sign ballot envelopes as if they had been legitimate witnesses. North Carolina law typically forbids third parties from handling absentee ballots.
> 
> During parts of both the 2016 and 2018 elections, the indictments said, Mr. Dowless’s conduct “served to undermine the integrity of the absentee ballot process and the public’s confidence in the outcome of the electoral process.” According to the indictment, spoiled ballots were tabulated in both races, including the 2018 primary, when Mr. Harris defeated Representative Robert M. Pittenger by 828 votes. In that contest, Mr. Harris won 437 of the 456 ballots cast through the mail in Bladen County, the hub of Mr. Dowless’s operation.
> 
> It was not clear on Wednesday how many ballots were compromised and counted during the primary.
> 
> Mr. Dowless’s lawyer did not respond to a message, and a woman who answered the phone at her office in Elizabethtown, N.C., declined to comment. Last week, after Mr. Dowless declined to testify during an evidentiary hearing before the state elections board, the lawyer, Cynthia Singletary, said, “I don’t think he’s done anything wrong.”
> 
> But to others who observed the proceedings in the state capital, where regulators heard days of testimony about Mr. Dowless’s work and reputation, he was all but certain to face prosecution — an outcome that Democrats and Republicans alike said seemed appropriate.
> 
> In an interview on Friday, the day after the elections board ordered a new vote, the prosecutor overseeing the criminal inquiry said she expected a grand jury to return its first charges within a month. On Tuesday, the grand jurors acted, but the indictments remained under seal until Mr. Dowless, 63, was arrested.
> Editors’ Picks
> He’s a Superstar Pastor. She Worked for Him and Says He Groped Her Repeatedly.
> An Addict Dies in a School Restroom. He Was a Teacher.
> This Mutant Crayfish Clones Itself, and It’s Taking Over Europe
> 
> “What has been challenging about this case and this investigation is that, as has been widely reported, certain activity has gone on for years,” the prosecutor, Lorrin Freeman, said last week. “The more interviews you do, the more interviews you have to do.”
> 
> Ms. Freeman, who is the Wake County district attorney and began investigating Mr. Dowless’s activities in Bladen County after the local prosecutor recused himself, said on Wednesday that Mr. Dowless had been arrested in the morning and was taken to Raleigh for processing. Mr. Dowless’s secured bond was set at $30,000, and he was ordered to avoid contact with anyone who was identified in the indictments.
> 
> Four other people were also indicted and face charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice and of illegally possessing absentee ballots. One of the four was also accused of falsely signing the voter certification on an absentee ballot.
> 
> Prosecutors could eventually seek additional charges against Mr. Dowless or his associates, especially in connection with the 2018 general election. The federal authorities have not said whether they are investigating Mr. Dowless.
> 
> Mr. Dowless has some familiarity with the criminal justice system, and his record includes felony convictions for perjury and fraud. But his background did not keep him from working for Mr. Harris, as well as other Democratic and Republican politicians who were seeking office in southeastern North Carolina.
> 
> [Read: Inside a Fly-by-Night Operation to Harvest Ballots in North Carolina]
> 
> There, Mr. Dowless built a reputation as a savvy organizer of effective absentee ballot efforts that, at least sometimes, seemed to rely on criminal conduct and a network of workers with little legal knowledge but a need for quick cash. In 2017, just months after Mr. Dowless worked for one of Mr. Harris’s rivals during a campaign for Congress, Mr. Harris hired him for his 2018 House bid. In doing so, Mr. Harris ignored the misgivings of one of his sons, who memorialized his concerns in an email that became public last week.
> 
> “The key thing that I am fairly certain they do that is illegal is that they collected the completed absentee ballots and mail them all at once,” John Harris wrote to his father in 2017.
> Sign Up for the Crossing the Border Newsletter
> 
> The U.S.-Mexico border is a daily headline. A political football. And also home to millions of people. Every week for the next few months, we'll bring you their stories, far from the tug-of-war of Washington politics.
> 
> Mark Harris repeatedly denied that he knew of any wrongdoing by Mr. Dowless or his associates, which his campaign spent tens of thousands of dollars to underwrite. Indeed, he insisted that Mr. Dowless had explicitly assured him that his effort would involve nothing improper. But Mr. Harris, who appeared to mislead investigators during his testimony, ultimately decided last Thursday that he would support a new election.
> 
> State officials are expected to meet on Monday to set a schedule for the new election, which will include a primary and be conducted as if a member of Congress had died or resigned. Mr. McCready, last year’s Democratic candidate, said on Friday that he would enter the race. On Tuesday, Mr. Harris cited his health and announced that he would not be a candidate.


Surprised this isn't a bigger story.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> uh, be more careful about who you decide to have children with? maybe marry the person first and ensure there's an actual bond between the two of you?
> 
> don't you think it's pretty immoral to not only bring a child into an unstable situation, but to then demand that _others_ pay your way because you made an immoral decision?
> 
> in the example you provided it sounds like the person made a choice to keep the child. well they have to live with that choice. if that means sacrificing everything for your child then so be it. you aren't entitled to a child AND a middle class lifestyle.












OMG you're priceless and so cute with your awesome morals! Marry the person first and create a bond before having casual sex? Sorry are you from the 50s? Did you even understand anything I wrote because you missed the point like Trump misses KFC half the day. She didn't decide to conceive a baby, the condo broke.

But you're right it was terribly immoral to bring the child into the world by my hypothetical woman, through no fault of her own mind you. However she was traumatically hounded by anti abortion conservative churchies who wore her down until she kept the baby. Funnily enough the same sort of people who then demanded I WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO HELP YOU OR YOUR CHILD!!! Funny how that works.

So her choices are have the baby and struggle through life because she's been guilted in to it by vicious anti-abortioners AND the strict local legislation of her bible belt town, or abort the baby and go to hell as a baby killer according to the same brave baby savers that won't lift a finger to help anyone who's actually been born.



> you aren't entitled to a child AND a middle class lifestyle.


USA USA USA!!!


----------



## Draykorinee

yeahbaby! said:


> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, be more careful about who you decide to have children with? maybe marry the person first and ensure there's an actual bond between the two of you?
> 
> don't you think it's pretty immoral to not only bring a child into an unstable situation, but to then demand that _others_ pay your way because you made an immoral decision?
> 
> in the example you provided it sounds like the person made a choice to keep the child. well they have to live with that choice. if that means sacrificing everything for your child then so be it. you aren't entitled to a child AND a middle class lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG you're priceless and so cute with your awesome morals! Marry the person first and create a bond before having casual sex? Sorry are you from the 50s? Did you even understand anything I wrote because you missed the point like Trump misses KFC half the day. She didn't decide to conceive a baby, the condo broke.
> 
> But you're right it was terribly immoral to bring the child into the world by my hypothetical woman, through no fault of her own mind you. However she was traumatically hounded by anti abortion conservative churchies who wore her down until she kept the baby. Funnily enough the same sort of people who then demanded I WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO HELP YOU OR YOUR CHILD!!! Funny how that works.
> 
> So her choices are have the baby and struggle through life because she's been guilted in to it by vicious anti-abortioners AND the strict local legislation of her bible belt town, or abort the baby and go to hell as a baby killer according to the same brave baby savers that won't lift a finger to help anyone who's actually been born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you aren't entitled to a child AND a middle class lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA USA USA!!!
Click to expand...

I dunno why you bother with that one.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

Berzerker's Beard said:


> raising the minimum wage will only inflate the currency and increase the price of goods and services. nobody gains any ground that way. if you want to improve the economy you need to _decrease_ the cost of goods and services.
> 
> the harder you make it to operate a small business, the worse it is for the economy. because when there are more businesses thriving and competing, that's when prices come down.


And yet, over the last 20 years, the cost of daily necessities has steadily increased while wages, across the board, have simultaneously declined. Absolutely criminal.

You are right though, increasing the min. wage (without any other action) will likely have the effects you mentioned. However, many reliable, economists do question the severity those effects will have. What is undoubtable is that, at least, millions of minimum wage workers will be given a much better opportunity at a decent quality of life, with a $15/hr min. wage.

The exact same people fear mongering, most, over the raising of the min. wage (CEO's, right wing politicians, establishment economists, etc.) argued just as strongly in favour of the Trump tax breaks. Stimulating the "job creators" was supposed to a spike in economic growth, it failed miserably. All it did was lead to a rush of corporate stock buybacks, further increasing inequality. 
Now it is time to stimulate demand, starting, by increasing the min. wage to $15/hr.


----------



## Strike Force

Some people hate both contraception and abortion.

Discuss.


----------



## blaird

GrumpyHawk said:


> And yet, over the last 20 years, the cost of daily necessities has steadily increased while wages, across the board, have simultaneously declined. Absolutely criminal.
> 
> You are right though, increasing the min. wage (without any other action) will likely have the effects you mentioned. However, many reliable, economists do question the severity those effects will have. What is undoubtable is that, at least, millions of minimum wage workers will be given a much better opportunity at a decent quality of life, with a $15/hr min. wage.
> 
> The exact same people fear mongering, most, over the raising of the min. wage (CEO's, right wing politicians, establishment economists, etc.) argued just as strongly in favour of the Trump tax breaks. Stimulating the "job creators" was supposed to a spike in economic growth, it failed miserably. All it did was lead to a rush of corporate stock buybacks, further increasing inequality.
> Now it is time to stimulate demand, starting, by increasing the min. wage to $15/hr.


So what happens if a min wage does get approved to $15 an hour and businesses start losing revenue, which will happen when their costs go up. Do you think businesses are going to be ok going from making say $100 million to make $40 million (this is just a hypothetical example of money). Do you think they will just accept that $40 million or do you think they will try to get back to the $100 million? If they try to get back to the $100 million, only way to do that quickly is to cut costs (letting people go) and raising prices. Wal Mart and other companies are cutting jobs by using self checkout lanes, McDonald's is cutting jobs using kiosks for ordering (I dont necessarily agree with this but these are examples). 

I was also talking to BM about the motivation point. Why work a high stress, crap hour job when you could do something low stress with easy hours making about the same? Are all wages going to increase across the board for all jobs to make up the difference between a say $18 an hour job now and an $8 an hour job (hopefully this makes as much sense to you as it does in my head). 

Im afraid that if the min wage gets jacked up, we will still see the same disparity in pricing/income that we face today, just on a larger scale. Youre gonna have to increase salaries across the board or people will quit the high stress, or higher education required jobs, in order to work for similar pay in an easy, low stress, low skilled job. So what you can buy with your paycheck today making $8 an hour will be similar to what you can buy then making $15 an hour.


----------



## Jokerface17

blaird said:


> So what happens if a min wage does get approved to $15 an hour and businesses start losing revenue, which will happen when their costs go up. Do you think businesses are going to be ok going from making say $100 million to make $40 million (this is just a hypothetical example of money). Do you think they will just accept that $40 million or do you think they will try to get back to the $100 million? If they try to get back to the $100 million, only way to do that quickly is to cut costs (letting people go) and raising prices. Wal Mart and other companies are cutting jobs by using self checkout lanes, McDonald's is cutting jobs using kiosks for ordering (I dont necessarily agree with this but these are examples).
> 
> 
> 
> I was also talking to BM about the motivation point. Why work a high stress, crap hour job when you could do something low stress with easy hours making about the same? Are all wages going to increase across the board for all jobs to make up the difference between a say $18 an hour job now and an $8 an hour job (hopefully this makes as much sense to you as it does in my head).
> 
> 
> 
> Im afraid that if the min wage gets jacked up, we will still see the same disparity in pricing/income that we face today, just on a larger scale. Youre gonna have to increase salaries across the board or people will quit the high stress, or higher education required jobs, in order to work for similar pay in an easy, low stress, low skilled job. So what you can buy with your paycheck today making $8 an hour will be similar to what you can buy then making $15 an hour.




This.

You can’t raise the minimum wage and expect the people working trade jobs to continue doing what they’re doing for the same money that someone flipping burgers is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mifune Jackson

I don't care if there's a minimum wage, as long as it's handled on a state-by-state basis. $15/hr in California is different than $15/hr in, like, I dunno... Kansas. The idea of doing this Federally doesn't really apply the same to every local economy.


----------



## krtgolfing

Mifune Jackson said:


> I don't care if there's a minimum wage, as long as it's handled on a state-by-state basis. $15/hr in California is different than $15/hr in, like, I dunno... Kansas. The idea of doing this Federally doesn't really apply the same to every local economy.


In reality it does not even apply on a state by state basis. For example $15 in Winston Salem, NC will get you much further than Charlotte, NC.


----------



## GrumpyHawk

blaird said:


> So what happens if a min wage does get approved to $15 an hour and businesses start losing revenue, which will happen when their costs go up. Do you think businesses are going to be ok going from making say $100 million to make $40 million (this is just a hypothetical example of money). Do you think they will just accept that $40 million or do you think they will try to get back to the $100 million? If they try to get back to the $100 million, only way to do that quickly is to cut costs (letting people go) and raising prices. Wal Mart and other companies are cutting jobs by using self checkout lanes, McDonald's is cutting jobs using kiosks for ordering (I dont necessarily agree with this but these are examples).
> 
> I was also talking to BM about the motivation point. Why work a high stress, crap hour job when you could do something low stress with easy hours making about the same? Are all wages going to increase across the board for all jobs to make up the difference between a say $18 an hour job now and an $8 an hour job (hopefully this makes as much sense to you as it does in my head).
> 
> Im afraid that if the min wage gets jacked up, we will still see the same disparity in pricing/income that we face today, just on a larger scale. Youre gonna have to increase salaries across the board or people will quit the high stress, or higher education required jobs, in order to work for similar pay in an easy, low stress, low skilled job. So what you can buy with your paycheck today making $8 an hour will be similar to what you can buy then making $15 an hour.


There is a strong argument that increasing the min. wage will put pressure on companies to increase all of their wages, across the board. This would be a very positive outcome, since all wages have been steadily declining over the last 40 years, while companies make record profits and economic growth has declined.

Over the last 20 years a completely contradictory trend has occurred, with wages decreasing as the cost of daily necessities has increased. In my opinion, your representation of the relationship is an oversimplification and you have exaggerated the effect raising min. wage would have on the cost of goods. 

The automation of jobs has been continuously occurring ever since the inception of the industrial revolution. The severity of the effect that raising the min. wage is will have on unemployment is still up for debate.

I don't there there is anyone arguing that raising the min. wage, alone, will solve all the problems with the economy. Much more comprehensive economic reforms are needed, but raising the min. wage would be a very big step, in a positive direction.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

krtgolfing said:


> In reality it does not even apply on a state by state basis. For example $15 in Winston Salem, NC will get you much further than Charlotte, NC.


That's very true, and there's rural parts of California, too, etc. I'm just saying that it doesn't apply broadly and those pushing for it at the Federal level aren't acknowledging nuance.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Another chapter in the KKK Governor of Virginia story:
> 
> https://wjla.com/news/local/virginias-first-lady-accused-of-handing-out-cotton-to-black-students
> 
> :heston
> 
> Can you even imagine if this was a Republican, or god forbid someone connected to Trump? :lol


Nobody wants to talk about this, guess they've had their fill of racism. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

Jokerface17 said:


> This.
> 
> You can’t raise the minimum wage and expect the people working trade jobs to continue doing what they’re doing for the same money that someone flipping burgers is.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Burger Flippers do much more work than the capitalists who own them. 

If *work* was the deciding factor of who earned what, we would have fewer problems. 

I really do love how lower and middle class continue to bicker amongst each other and drag each other down with their "I do more work than you therefore I deserve more" BS while completely ignoring the capitalist class where they are apparently immune from being held to any kind of standards with regards to "you earn what you work for" nonsense.

No. We do not live in a "meritocracy". We do not live in a society where people earn what they deserve. Stop believing that any of this shit is true.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reaper said:


> Burger Flippers do much more work than the capitalists who own them.
> 
> If *work* was the deciding factor of who earned what, we would have fewer problems.
> 
> I really do love how lower and middle class continue to bicker amongst each other and drag each other down with their "I do more work than you therefore I deserve more" BS while completely ignoring the capitalist class where they are apparently immune from being held to any kind of standards with regards to "you earn what you work for" nonsense.
> 
> No. *We do not live in a "meritocracy". We do not live in a society where people earn what they deserve.* Stop believing that any of this shit is true.


People earn based either on what they invest, contribute or produce. 

Someone who is more valuable to the economy and more valuable to the community will earn more than someone who is less valuable to the economy and less valuable to the community. Burger flippers don't make as much as plumbers and electricians because A) they are a dime a dozen... and B) having hamburgers is not as important as having indoor plumbing and working electricity.

Gold is more valuable than aluminum for a reason. It's more precious and more rare.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Burger Flippers do much more work than the capitalists who own them.
> 
> If *work* was the deciding factor of who earned what, we would have fewer problems.
> 
> I really do love how lower and middle class continue to bicker amongst each other and drag each other down with their "I do more work than you therefore I deserve more" BS while completely ignoring the capitalist class where they are apparently immune from being held to any kind of standards with regards to "you earn what you work for" nonsense.
> 
> No. We do not live in a "meritocracy". We do not live in a society where people earn what they deserve. Stop believing that any of this shit is true.


Yup them bickering reminds me of how Tater used to rage at people bickering over who deserves what based on skin color etc (miss tater!) when in reality you're all going to get fucked in the end!

I'm not sure things can be fixed, way too many mega rich people who'll never lose their money, way too many companies are all owned by singular giant entities. There's no real competition for making the best products you can nor the best work environments. Anytime a company shows up like this, they get bought or crushed.


----------



## deepelemblues

Burger flippers flip burgers and wipe down grills

The idea that they do "more work" than management is an immersion experiment joke, or a display of utter ignorance 

I saw plenty of burger flippers quit when I was a teenager flipping burgers, I wonder how they could have possibly done so being owned and all

OH, it's a shitty metaphor. Well then :draper2

Now instead of this masterclass of economic ignorance let's turn to another masterclass of economic ignorance, China desperately trying to keep its bubble inflated by injecting massive amounts of new debt into its economy

700 billion dollars in January, much to the chagrin of Chinese Premier Li Kieqang, who had previously promised or was perceived to have promised that the last time China did such a massive credit (debt) injection (2016) and the one before that (2015) was not going to happen again

Chinese debt is suspected to be 40% higher than the official numbers (or even more) with "shadow debt" ("Local Government Financing Vehicles") that regional and local governments use for development plans (debt-fueled real estate and manufacturing bubbles) skyrocketing

https://www.wsj.com/articles/theres...om-runs-into-a-great-wall-of-debt-11551267002

China's total debt (public and private) is 300% of its GDP (probably larger) and has grown from about 125% of GDP to (probably over) 300% of GDP in a single generation, from 1995 to 2019

This is of course completely unsustainable and does not bode well for anybody


----------



## njcam




----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Burger flippers flip burgers and wipe down grills
> 
> The idea that they do "more work" than management is an immersion experiment joke, or a display of utter ignorance
> 
> I saw plenty of burger flippers quit when I was a teenager flipping burgers, I wonder how they could have possibly done so being owned and all
> 
> OH, it's a shitty metaphor. Well then :draper2
> 
> Now instead of this masterclass of economic ignorance let's turn to another masterclass of economic ignorance, China desperately trying to keep its bubble inflated by injecting massive amounts of new debt into its economy
> 
> 700 billion dollars in January, much to the chagrin of Chinese Premier Li Kieqang, who had previously promised or was perceived to have promised that the last time China did such a massive credit (debt) injection (2016) and the one before that (2015) was not going to happen again
> 
> Chinese debt is suspected to be 40% higher than the official numbers (or even more) with "shadow debt" ("Local Government Financing Vehicles") that regional and local governments use for development plans (debt-fueled real estate and manufacturing bubbles) skyrocketing
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/theres...om-runs-into-a-great-wall-of-debt-11551267002
> 
> China's total debt (public and private) is 300% of its GDP (probably larger) and has grown from about 125% of GDP to (probably over) 300% of GDP in a single generation, from 1995 to 2019
> 
> This is of course completely unsustainable and does not bode well for anybody


Who said "management"? Since when is the "management" the capitalist class that owns the worker class? The management is the middle class and the upper most management is still owned by the capitalist class. I said capitalist. But you just wanted to bicker and so you lost the argument before you even started typing. But see you can't defend capitalists So you said management and created an entire scenario to argue that wasn't even the argument. 

Because you can't argue. You never can. And you change a word here and there like about stats and pretend you're refuting someone when you're not.

Your modus operandi is to be the anti-reaper contrarian for the last year. And that's about it. Still deep inside your head. Even in the India/Pakistan thread you picked the side of unproven conspiracy theories and Indian propaganda to argue ... probably because you figured I'd be arguing against India. Well of course, a violent, nationalist regime that has inspired violence and hate crimes in their country doesn't deserve anyone's sympathy at this point. And I do get to claim the higher ground because I have consistently spoken out about the violence against minorities and non-muslims in Pakistan. 

Aah well. Getting anything more than limited insight from you is something that happens once in a blue moon. I'll wait for the next period.


----------



## virus21

> Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has rejected calls to resign over a scandal that has rocked his administration in which senior officials have been accused of attempting to protect from prosecution a major Montreal-based engineering company accused of bribery.
> "Justin Trudeau simply cannot continue to govern this country now that Canadians know what he has done and that is why I am calling on Mr. Trudeau to do the right thing and to resign," Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, who is slated to run against Trudeau in Canada's upcoming October 2019 election, said in a statement to reporters.
> Calling on Royal Canadian Mounted Police to immediately launch an investigation into the claims against members of the Trudeau administration if it has not done so already, Scheer said he believes that Trudeau has "lost the moral authority to govern" in the wake of the allegations leveled against his government.
> Scheer's statement came after Canada's former Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould described a coordinated effort by senior officials close to Trudeau to discourage her from prosecuting Canadian firm SNC-Lavalin over accusations of fraud and bribery.
> Wilson-Raybould said she was barraged with demands and even veiled threats asking her to shut down the case and pursue a deferred prosecution agreement instead, which would allow SNC-Lavalin to pay a fine to address the allegations. The former justice minister said she had been subjected to at least 10 phone calls and 10 separate meetings with senior officials to discuss the case within a four-month period.
> She also described a meeting with Trudeau himself, at which she alleges the prime minister asked her to "help out" with the case, saying he was concerned as a member of parliament for Quebec that SNC-Lavalin jobs could be left hanging in the balance if the case were to move forward.
> Wilson-Raybould said she had asked the prime minister at the time: “Are you politically interfering with my role as attorney general?" and warned him that she "would strongly advise against it."
> "No, no, no. We just need to find a solution," she described the Canadian leader as saying.
> The controversy surrounding the SNC-Lavalin case has plagued the Trudeau administration since The Globe and Mail newspaper reported earlier this month that senior officials had allegedly pressured Wilson-Raybould into attempting to avoid a criminal prosecution against SNC-Lavalin over accusations of fraud and corruption around government contracts in Libya. If convicted of the charges, SNC-Lavalin could face a decade-long ban from competing for federal government contracts.
> Despite allegedly facing pressure to drop the case, Wilson-Raybould said she pursued it, but after four months, was demoted to veteran affairs minister.
> The former attorney general said during her testimony this week that she viewed her demotion as reminiscent of the infamous Saturday Night Massacre, a key moment in the U.S. Watergate scandal that saw former President Richard Nixon fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox before accepting the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus.
> Scheer said it was unacceptable that Wilson-Raybould had allegedly been relentlessly targeted by senior officials "with the sole objective of bullying her into bending the law to benefit a well-connected corporation."
> "The details are as shocking as they are corrupt," Scheer said in his statement. "Multiple veiled threats to her job if she didn't bow to their demands. Urgings to consider the consequences on election results and shareholder value above judicial due process. And reminders from Justin Trudeau to his attorney general about his own electoral prospects should she allow an SNC-Lavalin trial to proceed."
> Describing Trudeau as a leader "who allows his partisan, political motivations to overrule his duty to uphold the rule of law" and as "who has allowed a systemic culture of corruption to take root in his office and those of his most senior Cabinet and public service colleagues," Scheer said Canada had "entered the final stages of Mr. Trudeau's government."
> "He can no longer and in good standing with a clear conscience lead this nation," Scheer said.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the opposition party's calls for Trudeau to resign, the Canadian prime minister has refused, maintaining that any decision to avoid prosecuting SNC-Lavalin was Wilson-Raybould's alone.
> Speaking at a news conference following Wilson-Raybould's testimony, Trudeau said he "completely disagrees with the former attorney general's characterization of events" and maintained that his administration was only focused on jobs.


http://archive.is/AoR84#selection-375.0-471.234


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Love how you take things out of context. Post the actual quote.
> 
> Again some people cannot afford an ID and the money it takes to travel there. We have been over this a million times.
> 
> We are talking about how min. wage SHOULD work not how it does. And min wage SHOULD be a living wage.
> 
> But of course once again you lie about what we are talking about


Oh, you have a problem with people taking things you say out of context? I'm surprised seeing as you regularly do it with everyone you disagree with to diminish their argument. Fact is, you regurgitated Bernie Sanders talking points, because like he, you both don't believe people deserve the money they make. Also, you've been wrong about ID and how poor people really are in the USA. You refuse to acknowledge you need ID for virtually everything today and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't have ID. You show blatant racism(you love your blue anti-Semites too) of low expectations yet never actually acknowledge that minorities aren't the only poor people in America. Your entire argument is driven by the notion that its racism based, yet, most of America believe it should be required . You're in the wrong on voter ID.

Ok, let me explain to you how this works . What's a living wage? What's a living wage for a single person? Well, don't you think it would be significantly different for a family of 4? What about home owners compared to renters? What about living in New York compared to say Montana? A dollar stretches further in some cities than they do in others. You don't seem to understand that. Let's start with 18 an hour okay ? What happens to workers when minimum wage increases? A lot of people lose their jobs(which you're on record saying you're okay with because people lose their jobs all the time and would have regardless), why? To offset the cost of increasing wages to every worker . What happens to products and goods when that happens? They increase the price to offset the cost. What happens to your buying power ? It goes right back to where it was before the wage increase. Then in a few years, you're going to complain that 18 isn't enough and that 20 is where it should be. Then we go through this exact same cycle in a few years. You don't seem to understand how any of this works, but again you work with broken calculators 

Also, these were rhetorical questions for the record.


----------



## 777

For the record, increasing minimum wage only feeds into the inflation cycle. Businesses increase prices to offset costs and the cycle continues.


----------



## Miss Sally

Stinger Fan said:


> Oh, you have a problem with people taking things you say out of context? I'm surprised seeing as you regularly do it with everyone you disagree with to diminish their argument. Fact is, you regurgitated Bernie Sanders talking points, because like he, you both don't believe people deserve the money they make. Also, you've been wrong about ID and how poor people really are in the USA. You refuse to acknowledge you need ID for virtually everything today and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't have ID. You show blatant racism(you love your blue anti-Semites too) of low expectations yet never actually acknowledge that minorities aren't the only poor people in America. Your entire argument is driven by the notion that its racism based, yet, most of America believe it should be required . You're in the wrong on voter ID.
> 
> Ok, let me explain to you how this works . What's a living wage? What's a living wage for a single person? Well, don't you think it would be significantly different for a family of 4? What about home owners compared to renters? What about living in New York compared to say Montana? A dollar stretches further in some cities than they do in others. You don't seem to understand that. Let's start with 18 an hour okay ? What happens to workers when minimum wage increases? A lot of people lose their jobs(which you're on record saying you're okay with because people lose their jobs all the time and would have regardless), why? To offset the cost of increasing wages to every worker . What happens to products and goods when that happens? They increase the price to offset the cost. What happens to your buying power ? It goes right back to where it was before the wage increase. Then in a few years, you're going to complain that 18 isn't enough and that 20 is where it should be. Then we go through this exact same cycle in a few years. You don't seem to understand how any of this works, but again you work with broken calculators
> 
> Also, these were rhetorical questions for the record.


You forgot one thing that most people forget, what happens to people already making 13-17 bucks an hour who worked hard to earn that?

15 buck minimum wage pretty much cleaves their spending power and no way will those companies make up for the loss. 

At this point Justin Trudeau will end up getting exposed for corruption before any real evidence of Trump colluding with Russians does. :laugh:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

labor is a *service*. 

both the employer and the employee are offering their services in exchange for compensation. the employer is offering their services to the customer... and the employee is offering their services to their employer. in this case an employee's service being *labor*. if the govt cannot enforce the price of haircuts, the price of movie rentals and the price of hamburgers... why should they be allowed to enforce the price of labor? 

also by raising minimum wage you are completely shutting out teenagers and those who lack experience. normally they would have less trouble finding work because they demanded less money (as they should)... but if a 15-17 year old kid with no experience is demanding the same amount as someone who's 28-30 and has experience... why in the world would anyone hire them? 

all perfectly reasonable questions of course, which means they will be completely and utterly ignored by the usual progs and 'living wage' activists.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Miss Sally said:


> You forgot one thing that most people forget, what happens to people already making 13-17 bucks an hour who worked hard to earn that?
> 
> 15 buck minimum wage pretty much cleaves their spending power and no way will those companies make up for the loss.
> 
> At this point Justin Trudeau will end up getting exposed for corruption before any real evidence of Trump colluding with Russians does. :laugh:


I vaguely remember this but do you remember a few years ago that business owner who wanted to achieve equal pay so he gave raises to his lower paid employees so everyone was paid the same despite the job? If I recall correctly, most of his workers ended up quitting and his company ended up going under in the span of a day or 2 :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Stinger Fan said:


> I vaguely remember this but do you remember a few years ago that business owner who wanted to achieve equal pay so he gave raises to his lower paid employees so everyone was paid the same despite the job? If I recall correctly, most of his workers ended up quitting and his company ended up going under in the span of a day or 2 :lol


I don't, I do remember the business that had a "Democratic" way of doing things where people could come in when they want etc and that business went under. Forget the exact reasons. :laugh:

I suppose it's worth a try, maybe the people who believe in exact equal pay can go work for a company based on that and tell us how it is? If you're going to convince me the water is fine, I need to see you jump in first! :x


----------



## Draykorinee

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progr...VocoZdJzPjlOZzJOpoAdNFjW8r_5gJxFyCbFRnL5HUIaQ

America, the land of the free. Free to marry kids like a proper paedo. 2019 and we're still allowing child brides.


----------



## deepelemblues

777 said:


> For the record, increasing minimum wage only feeds into the inflation cycle. Businesses increase prices to offset costs and the cycle continues.


Wrong.

It also protects unskilled white labor from competition by unskilled non-white labor.

That was the original intent of the minimum wage and is still the main effect of minimum wage laws in Current Year. White and non-white unemployment was at similar levels, actually non-white unemployment was usually lower than white unemployment, until the passage of minimum wage laws. Non-white unemployment skyrocketed and stayed that way for a century.


----------



## Pratchett

2 Ton 21 said:


> I wrote out this long response about some people that work those jobs do so to get by until another one opens in their chosen field and how they still need enough to get by and how even the lifers at those jobs still need to live.
> 
> Then I realized we've had this conversation on here a thousand times and I'm not changing anyone's mind. We just keep going in circles. Nothing changes. We keep arguing over the same things, but neither side feels like they get what they want. The left thinks the rights controls everything and they never win. The right thinks the left controls everything and they never win. Nobody thinks their side is making a dent in making the world the way they want it to be and that the other side is just running away with it.
> 
> Truth is, none of us on the ground, on either side, is winning. We're all just losing in a different way.


The political class and the wealthy elite are winning though, at our expense and with our blessing. But that's okay for a lot of us regular folks, as long as we can be convinced that "our side" is doing better than the "others". So you are quite correct when you say that neither side is making a dent. And I say that is by design.

Bread and Circuses.

Dog and Pony shows.

Left vs Right.

Liberals vs Conservatives.

Democrats vs Republicans.

It is all a bunch of useless nonsense that adds up to *Divide and Conquer*.

Expendable resources aren't supposed to "win".



CamillePunk said:


> We should have fewer financially irresponsible people voting, not more.


We should have fewer people voting, period.

Pitchforks and torches. That's the only way we are ever going to fix anything at this point.


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> Wrong.
> 
> It also protects unskilled white labor from competition by unskilled non-white labor.
> 
> That was the original intent of the minimum wage and is still the main effect of minimum wage laws in Current Year. White and non-white unemployment was at similar levels, actually non-white unemployment was usually lower than white unemployment, until the passage of minimum wage laws. Non-white unemployment skyrocketed and stayed that way for a century.


So minimum wage was designed to help white people and hold back brown people?

:confused


----------



## GrumpyHawk

I'm assuming that everyone who is so worried about losing some jobs by raising the minimum wage is also against the guaranteed massive job creation program, the green new deal...?


----------



## 777

deepelemblues said:


> Wrong.
> 
> It also protects unskilled white labor from competition by unskilled non-white labor.
> 
> That was the original intent of the minimum wage and is still the main effect of minimum wage laws in Current Year. White and non-white unemployment was at similar levels, actually non-white unemployment was usually lower than white unemployment, until the passage of minimum wage laws. Non-white unemployment skyrocketed and stayed that way for a century.


Ummmm, what? Why are you bringing race into this?

This phenomenon would occur even in an ethno-state. So...


----------



## CamillePunk

Yeah US history, why you bringin race into this?? :mj4


----------



## deepelemblues

Miss Sally said:


> So minimum wage was designed to help white people and hold back brown people?
> 
> :confused


It was designed to protect white unskilled manual laborers in cities who were stevedores or did similar unskilled loading/unloading/hauling jobs. Blacks were getting hired to do those jobs (at lower wages of course)... this made white unskilled manual laborers pissed off dat der jerbs wur bean tooken! So to get the po' buckra to chill the fuck out, minimum wage laws were presented and implemented as the solution. Businesses were willing to hire whites but not blacks at the higher wages. "Problem" "solved"



777 said:


> Ummmm, what? Why are you bringing race into this?
> 
> This phenomenon would occur even in an ethno-state. So...


Because race is literally the reason minimum wage laws were first created in the United States, and they still have a disparate impact on non-whites


----------



## DesolationRow

@deepelemblues; is correct in his assertion as it pertains to the twentieth century inception of minimum wage laws in South Africa and the U.S.

In the apartheid time of South Africa, Gert Beetge, Secretary of the Building Workers' Union, the country's racist guild which was a major special interest influencing government policy, said to the press, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job (minimum wage) as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans." The South African Economic and Wage Commission of 1925 reported that while "definite exclusion of the Natives from the more remunerative fields of employment by law has not been urged upon us, the same result would follow a certain use of the powers of the Wage Board under the Wage Act of 1925, or of other wage-fixing legislation. The method would bet o fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed." 

In the U.S., national minimum wage laws first came about largely due to the efforts of racists: the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act set minimum wages on federally funded and/or assisted construction projects. Representative John Cochran, Democrat of Missouri, said during the debates on the proposed legislation, that he had received "numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." Representative William Upshaw, Georgian Democrat, bristled at what he referred to as "the superabundance or large aggregation of ***** labor," saying that the minimum wage act would "correct this horrific racial disgrace" of employed blacks. Democrat Miles Allgood of Alabama spoke for hours of what he called the "pernicious ***** laborer..." Once of the more notable statements from his address was, "That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."


----------



## deepelemblues

Yes it was in the 1930s that national minimum wage laws (Davis-Bacon, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act) were instituted with the intent of, among other things, pricing both skilled and unskilled black labor out of the market; previously, there were agreements between (white) unions and companies, and local and state minimum wage laws, that achieved the same effect. Like the agreement in 1909 between the Brotherhood of Local Firemen (engine-stokers) and the railroad companies to institute a minimum wage for employees of railroads in the South. Non-unionized blacks dominated some categories of unskilled jobs on southern railroads, and had a higher percentage of skilled positions than whites, especially unionized whites, thought acceptable. Black men "doing white men's work" was seen as not only an economic threat to 'white families,' but a deadly danger to the stability and order of society as well, as such black men might form and spread _dangerous_ ideas about being equal to whites in general thanks to their "doing white men's work."


----------



## Reaper

I can use a toothbrush for cleaning my teeth and another toothbrush for scrubbing my stove top. 

But you say that "Toothbrushes were only invented to brush your teeth, how dare you use it for scrubbing your stove top!"

And I say, but the same thing can be used for different thing and you go 

WTF. OMG.

Interesting to see that the Canadian @777 immediately had a negative reaction to the racialized nature of the far right version of events around minimum wage laws because his country has successful minimum wage laws that had no racialized aspect to them whatsoever. As is the case with many interpretations of history, current attitudes around minimum wage laws are horrendously archaic. 

The reality is that _at this point _while minimum wage laws can apply to certain industries they won't have a negative impact via race ... unless the right wingers admit that employers are racist in their hiring practice, but they also simultaneously believe that capitalism is inherently about meritocracy and that we're currently living in a post-racial America where discrimination is too low of a factor to have any meaningful impact on employment of minorities. 

So which is it? Are people racist and therefore likely to abuse minimum wage laws and further reinforcing the idea that institutionalized racism exists? 

Or we're not living in a racist society and therefore minimum wage laws won't impact minorities.

:lol


----------



## DesolationRow

:lol @Reaper;.

Just do not use the same toothbrush for both! 


http://apnews.com/3bb89833fc134a4ea02ecaf8d160a9b9



> Rep. Ilhan Omar criticized again for alleged anti-Semitism
> 
> By STEVE KARNOWSKI
> 
> yesterday
> 
> ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Rep. Ilhan Omar has come under fresh criticism for remarks critics call anti-Semitic.
> 
> The Minnesota Democrat was appearing at a forum in Washington with Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan when she said she fears everything they say about Israel is construed as anti-Semitic because they’re Muslim.
> 
> But some Jewish leaders say Omar then revived an old trope about divided loyalties among Jewish-Americans when she criticized the idea that it’s “OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
> 
> Steve Hunegs of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas says he’s appalled.
> 
> Spokesman Jeremy Slevin says Omar was just speaking out Wednesday about “the undue influence of lobbying groups for foreign interests.” Slevin said Omar repeated her remorse for the pain that her previous comments caused.


Fascinating story as the heat continues to be turned up on Representative Ilhan Omar.



Reaper said:


> I can use a toothbrush for cleaning my teeth and another toothbrush for scrubbing my stove top.
> 
> But you say that "Toothbrushes were only invented to brush your teeth, how dare you use it for scrubbing your stove top!"
> 
> And I say, but the same thing can be used for different thing and you go
> 
> WTF. OMG.
> 
> Interesting to see that the Canadian @777 immediately had a negative reaction to the racialized nature of the far right version of events around minimum wage laws because his country has successful minimum wage laws that had no racialized aspect to them whatsoever. As is the case with many interpretations of history, current attitudes around minimum wage laws are horrendously archaic.
> 
> The reality is that _at this point _while minimum wage laws can apply to certain industries they won't have a negative impact via race ... unless the right wingers admit that employers are racist in their hiring practice, but they also simultaneously believe that capitalism is inherently about meritocracy and that we're currently living in a post-racial America where discrimination is too low of a factor to have any meaningful impact on employment of minorities.
> 
> So which is it? Are people racist and therefore likely to abuse minimum wage laws and further reinforcing the idea that institutionalized racism exists?
> 
> Or we're not living in a racist society and therefore minimum wage laws won't impact minorities.
> 
> :lol


The present voice was admittedly only stating that @deepelemblues;'s point regarding minimum wage laws being utilized to dictate a certain racial _status quo_ in the U.S. and South Africa was correct. 

Simultaneously myriad comments may be made concerning claims of "meritocracy" and the like from those who may perhaps be called capitalism-_über-alles_ votaries.


----------



## Reaper

DesolationRow said:


> The present voice was admittedly only stating that @deepelemblues;'s point regarding minimum wage laws being utilized to dictate a certain racial _status quo_ in the U.S. and South Africa was correct.
> 
> Simultaneously myriad comments may be made concerning claims of "meritocracy" and the like from those who may perhaps be called capitalism-_über-alles_ votaries.


Recently became aware of the idea that meritocracy was coined as a satirical rebuke of the idea itself and so I've become kind of weary with regards to its current use in political discourse. Remember when we used to make fun of the concept that at some point people will believe that the earth is flat .. and so it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The joke became a reality. Meritocracy seems to have followed a similar pattern. 

Definitely not using the same toothbrush for both tho !


----------



## deepelemblues

The racial history of the minimum wage is but one lane through the forest of why it sucks 

People should not miss the forest for sticking their face to the flagstones and declaring what a pathetic road this is 

The effect of minimum wage laws is to exclude labor from the market period

This can be done intentionally for whatever reason, or it can be unintentional, but it is always present

The economists and academics of the time when the concept of the minimum wage was created, the men who helped create it, fully understood the effect a minimum wage would have. Unemployment among the least skilled, the least educated, the least experienced, _the least desirable for any reason,_ would rise

The false dilemma presented with the vulgarly smeared veneer of racial glee is patently absurd

It assumes a fantasy world where all laborers are of equal skill, education, experience, and trustworthiness

In the real world, there is no such equality

You see a similar excluding of certain groups of white laborers with the minimum wage laws as with non-whites. That is, the unskilled, the badly educated, the inexperienced, and those with criminal records

It is not some mystery it's harder to find a job if you don't know jack in general, or have a spotty employment history, or don't know jack about what jobs want you to know, or have a record

Non-whites are more likely to fit one to all of those categories than whites 

Before the minimum wage this did not matter so much, hiring less productive labor at lower wages was worth it and many of those laborers gained skills and experience that allowed many of them to rise up out of the lowest dregs of poverty and engage the natural ambition to arrange as much as possible for their children to have a better life 

Today there are millions upon millions of people who have no prospect of improving the slums or getting out of them, and their children don't either. Many of them can't find steady employment. They work, but change jobs frequently and they are all jobs of the lowest wages, with short or lengthy periods of unemployment in between. To a greater or lesser degree, they are all dependent on the State. Most of them are non-white, but many groups of whites are sliding downwards into that class. And then there is the growing class of people who seem to have become permanently semi-employed or unemployed, which also is mostly non-white but has increasing numbers of whites in it

Would abolishing the minimum wage put such people on an equal footing at finding and maintaining employment? No, but it would put them on a more equal footing

Also note that any attempts to generally lower wages because of there not being a minimum wage would have as their main result a resurgence of union membership as labor would fiercely defend its self-interest. No doubt if it were abolished, the alleged threat of such attempts would be frequently and loudly communicated to workers. Where it would also without doubt find many receptive ears. Union membership has declined largely because the perception of non-union jobs improved in those who were previously the type to join unions, or actually had been in unions. Falling wages, or the alleged threat of them, would not improve that perception

So as you can see there are good and solid reasons for those who claim to advocate for labor to abhor the minimum wage. The lowest, least productive class of labor would gain greater opportunity for uplift, which should be reason enough, and it would also increase the vigilance of labor in general

The doublethink of endlessly race-baiting and emphasizing race and racial injustice then derisively dismissing racial injustice, when its presence is support for an argument whose conclusion is inconvenient to some other ideological imperative, is very :heston though. A fine display of the utilitarian malleability of principle


----------



## 777

deepelemblues said:


> Because race is literally the reason minimum wage laws were first created in the United States, and they still have a disparate impact on non-whites


OK, a) there's a great big ol world outside of the US.

and b) how does that in any way dispute my initial assertion?


----------



## Stinger Fan

GrumpyHawk said:


> I'm assuming that everyone who is so worried about losing some jobs by raising the minimum wage is also against the guaranteed massive job creation program, the green new deal...?


The same green new deal that will cost over 50 trillion dollars in 10 years, give money to people unwilling to work and could actually kill hundreds of thousands ,if not millions of jobs?Is that the one you're talking about? The same one thats so bad AOC resorted to saying Republicans were lying about it and removed it from her website? :lol


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

last 2 pages i'm seeing a whole bunch of sound, reasonable arguments as to why enforcing a minimum wage is a flawed and immoral practice.

not seeing a whole lot of compelling counter arguments.


----------



## virus21

> After more than two dozen moderate Democrats broke from their party's progressive wing and sided with Republicans on a legislative amendment Wednesday, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reportedly sounded the alarm in a closed-door meeting Thursday and said those Democrats were "putting themselves on a list."
> The legislation that prompted the infighting was a bill that would expand federal background checks for gun purchases, the Washington Post reported. But a key provision requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be notified if illegal immigrants attempt to purchase guns saw 26 moderate Democrats side with Republicans.
> CUOMO URGING AMAZON FOR SECOND CHANCE, DESPITE OCASIO-CORTEZ VICTORY LAP
> According to the Post, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scolded her wayward center-leaning colleagues, telling them: "We are either a team or we’re not, and we have to make that decision.”
> But Ocasio-Cortez reportedly took it a step further. She said she would help progressive activists unseat those moderates in their districts in the 2020 elections, the report said. Her spokesman Corbin Trent told the paper that she made the "list" comment during the meeting.
> GET THE FOX NEWS APP
> “She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs, they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them,” Trent said, referring to ICE.


http://archive.is/JRxwb
Bitch is crazy.


----------



## CJ

GrumpyHawk said:


> P.S. sorry for the triple post. I was not sure how to combine multiple quotes into one post at the time.


Click multi-quote on the posts you want to quote., then click quote on the last one.


----------



## virus21

> T-shirts bearing the "Girl Power" slogan have been removed from sale following allegations that workers were being exploited at the factory where they are made.
> 
> Sold by the F= website which aims to "provide modern day women with inspiration, motivation, and empowerment through the success stories of women", the garments were retailing at £28, although £10 was donated to Worldreader, a charity that provides people in developing countries with access to a digital library.
> 
> None of the profits went to F=.
> 
> While the slogans were printed in the UK, the organic cotton T-shirts were made by Belgian brand Stanley/Stella in Bangladesh in a factory owned by a firm called Dird Composite Textiles.
> 
> More than 100 workers in the factory were recently relieved of their jobs following a strike this January, which saw thousands of workers in Bangladesh protest low wages, according to an investigation by The Guardian which also claimed that some workers at the factory earn approximately 42p an hour.
> Surfer girls in Bangladesh
> Show all 14
> Surfer girls in Bangladesh
> Surfer girls in Bangladesh
> Surfer girls in Bangladesh
> Surfer girls in Bangladesh
> 
> It also alleged that a female employee had been beaten under the orders of managerial staff.
> 
> Responding to the allegations one of the co-founders of F=, Danielle Newnham, posted an open letter on the company's website.
> 
> Along with her fellow co-founder and twin sister Natalie Bardega, she said she had been assured the factory in which the T-shirts were being made had been certified by the Fair Wear Foundation (FWF) - a non-profit organisation committed to helping workers within the garment industry.
> 
> "To clarify, we print our T-shirts here in the UK but, we are always concerned if anyone is treated badly," she wrote. "Our entire mission is based on empowerment and if we receive evidence of poor treatment, we would look for another supplier immediately."
> Watch more
> 
> Children in Bangladesh meet UK peers online
> 
> The pair had chosen Stanley/Stella as their T-shirt manufacturer following "months of research", and were assured of the company's commitment to sustainability, she added.
> 
> She also addressed a picture shared on Instagram of Holly Willoughby and Emma Bunton wearing the "Girl Power" T-shirts, stating that neither were paid to endorse or advertise the products.
> 
> The entire shop on the F= website was temporarily closed following the allegations.
> 
> In a separate interview with The Independent Ms Newham said that F= have been told that the 100 workers who were allegedly sacked from the factory actually resigned from their jobs.
> 
> Prior to the investigation "we had no contact with either Stanley/Stella or the factory itself," she said. "We print our T-shirts in the UK - our printer buys them in wholesale from Stanley/Stella in Europe. We did a lot of research when we started four years ago to ensure we found the most green and conscious suppliers we could and Stanley/Stella came out on top."
> 
> FWF told The Independent that Stanley/Stella was dedicated to "improving working conditions" in the garment industry.
> 
> "We understand that that is difficult to grasp for consumers who just read about violations in this factory but the garment industry is complex, global, fragmented and rarely transparent," it said in a statement. "Stanley/Stella is one of those brands that want to break the vicious cycle and improve how our clothes are made. And we think they should be supported for that."
> Read more
> 
> Bangladesh election marred by ‘vote-rigging’ and deadly violence
> 
> It added that the along with Bangladeshi factory in question, it was investigating the case and the findings would be published on its website when "all facts are clear".
> 
> It also clarified that the FWF is not able to certify brands or factories, as previously suggested.
> 
> "In high-risk countries like Bangladesh, serious problems will inevitably be found in most supply chains," it said. "Harassment and low wages are endemic in Bangladeshi garment factories. When issues arise, FWF requires that its member brands address these problems head-on."
> 
> Stanley/Stella told The Independent that it was doing the best it can to "select the right factories", to "monitor them closely", and to address any queries raised.
> 
> Regarding the issue of poor pay at the Bangladeshi factory, it said it was "unfair" to assume that Dird Composite Textiles and Stanley/Stella are the only companies paying its workers low wages.
> 
> "Our factories pay more than the minimum to most of their workers. Some factories probably pay even less than the minimum wage, and that would probably deserve an in-depth investigation," it said in a statement. "About the 100 workers, we are still investigating this with FWF to understand if it was well by volunteer resignation."
> 
> Worldreader, the literacy charity that's received donations from the sales of the T-shirts for the past four years, told The Independent that it was "saddened" upon hearing of the investigation.
> 
> "Prior to accepting donations from the sales of "Girl Power” T-shirts, we entered into a contract that ensured the shirts were 'Fair Wear certified'," it said. "Worldreader has agreed with F=, our donor who printed the shirts, that we will cease accepting donations from the sale of these shirts until the situation is resolved."
> Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent Minds
> 
> In 2014, gender equality charity the Fawcett Society investigated claims that a T-shirt promoted by the organisation adorned with the slogan: "This is what a feminist looks like" was being made by female workers in Mauritius being paid 62p an hour.
> 
> The £45 T-shirt was manufactured in collaboration with Elle magazine and was designed and produced by high street brand Whistles.
> 
> In September 2018, it was announced that the minimum wage in Bangladesh had increased to 8,000 taka a month (£72).
> 
> The Independent has contacted Dird Composite Textiles for further comment.


https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/girl-power-t-shirts-factory-bangladesh-minimum-wage-strike-a8803041.html
White western Feminism held up by exploiting non-whites elsewhere?! Sounds about right.


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> http://archive.is/JRxwb
> Bitch is crazy.


She's trying to create her own establishment. 

She's not anti-establishment in the least, despite what people say. She has no interest in compromise or working with others, if you're not with her you're against her. She's just interested in her own side. 

Lots of Dems/Republicans vote on the same issues, yeah we have a 1 party system pretty much but we do have Politicians from both sides who will vote the same way when it comes to constitutional issues. She don't like that.

As time goes on she's going to get exposed for what she really is.



virus21 said:


> https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/girl-power-t-shirts-factory-bangladesh-minimum-wage-strike-a8803041.html
> White western Feminism held up by exploiting non-whites elsewhere?! Sounds about right.


They've somehow convinced people in the West that despite being the majority, ticking all of the boxes for privilege that they're somehow an oppressed group. Yet time and time again they get exposed for oppressive behavior to others, being shit tastic allies only interested in themselves, being wildly sexiest and pretty racist. Yet people still cower and bow before them.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

young people look up to rebels. people with that "i don't give a fuck" mentality. 

rational people might see AOC and disregard her as the petulant child she is, but to the young kids on the left she might as well be 2Pac. they love this shit.


----------



## 777

Had to check this out specifically cuz I know Styxx is a Vermonter.


----------



## yeahbaby!

AOC really pushing the conservative buttons. How delicious.


----------



## DesolationRow

yeahbaby! said:


> AOC really pushing the conservative buttons. How delicious.


Conservatives seem hellbent on providing some assistance in promoting her, too. 

It truly is reminiscent thus far of the entire Donald Trump "phenomenon" as presidential candidate, though obviously a politically "inverted" symbiotic relationship as per the present paradigm. Trump was also an exceedingly well-known celebrity for decades.

To Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's credit, she is "only" one of 435 Representatives of the House.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

DesolationRow said:


> Conservatives seem hellbent on providing some assistance in promoting her, too.
> 
> It truly is reminiscent thus far of the entire Donald Trump "phenomenon" as presidential candidate, though obviously a politically "inverted" symbiotic relationship as per the present paradigm. Trump was also an exceedingly well-known celebrity for decades.
> 
> To Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's credit, she is "only" one of 435 Representatives of the House.


i don't think liberals thought trump had a chance though. they were just giving him all that attention because they were in love with the circus and it gave them ample opportunity to virtue signal.

i think conservatives know that the left is giving AOC the mega push and so they are rushing to discredit her and put the fire out now before it spreads.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i don't think liberals thought trump had a chance though. they were just giving him all that attention because they were in love with the circus and it gave them ample opportunity to virtue signal.
> 
> *i think conservatives know that the left is giving AOC the mega push and so they are rushing to discredit her and put the fire out now before it spreads.*


Some may be yes, others rusted on righties are probably so frightened on the inside by an unapologetic woman speaking her mind with relish they freak out and start shrieking from the hills while their dicks shrivel.

Desolation does bring up an interesting point - keep pouring gas on the fire and it'll blow up in your face. The same Trump Cult of Personality game could end up being the best game to play to get in to office, and I could see a character like AOC using it to the best of her advantage to gain more and more traction.


----------



## virus21

> Confidence in the media has hit rock bottom, with many news consumers believing that reporters file their reports before knowing the facts and 60 percent are under the impression that sources pay for stories, according to a depressing new survey of American journalism.
> 
> The Columbia Journalism Review poll also confirmed the pending death of print newspapers and magazines and a remarkable shift to social and online media as sources of news.
> cjr 1.jpg
> Is there karma for Kamala?
> Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
> 
> 
> The survey, done in partnership with Reuters/Ipsos, interviewed 4,214 adults and found that the media is last on a list of all of Washington’s institutions that the public has confidence in, even under Congress.
> 
> [Opinion: How local news can restore trust in the media]
> 
> CJR did not write up a report or analysis beyond an introduction on the "trust gap" it found. They wrote, "For decades, we’ve known that Americans don’t trust the press. What we haven’t known is how people view the makings of journalism, from the use of fact checkers and anonymous sources to the question of whether money skews journalistic decision-making. This new national poll for CJR answers those questions, and points to how big the trust gap remains."
> 
> Instead of words, it showed the grim news in graphics.
> 
> In those graphics, it revealed the problem journalism faces. Some key findings:
> 
> The press led institutions for which the public has the lowest confidence.
> 
> Of all demographic groups, only Democrats expressed a positive confidence in the press.
> 
> 40 percent get their news from TV.
> 
> 40 percent get their news from online and social media sources.
> 
> 6 percent get their news from newspapers and magazines.
> 
> 60 percent believe that sources pay reporters.
> 
> 41 percent are unlikely to believe stories filled with anonymous sources.
> 
> 42 percent of Democrats believe the media isn’t biased. Just 10 percent of Republicans said the same.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trust-in-media-hits-bottom-60-percent-say-sources-pay-for-stories


----------



## P Thriller

yeahbaby! said:


> Some may be yes, others rusted on righties are probably so frightened on the inside by an unapologetic woman speaking her mind with relish they freak out and start shrieking from the hills while their dicks shrivel.
> 
> Desolation does bring up an interesting point - keep pouring gas on the fire and it'll blow up in your face. The same Trump Cult of Personality game could end up being the best game to play to get in to office, and I could see a character like AOC using it to the best of her advantage to gain more and more traction.


We are in a pretty pathetic state as a country if we are going to have to start choosing between people like Trump and AOC. I guess you really don't have to be qualified to be president anymore as long as you just put your name out there and garner tons of media attention. 

While I'm sure that some on the right are put off by an "unapologetic woman speaking her mind", the rest of us are threatened by her because she is a dumbass who believes in spending tens of trillions of dollars when our country is already in over 20 trillion dollars of debt and thinks that we can just tax the rich to fund all of it (Which has basically been proven that taxing the rich wouldn't even balance our current budget). 

If the Democrats want to win this election, they really need to stop going to far extreme to the left. People like Bernie and AOC will cost them this election if they aren't careful because most people have enough common sense to know that their policies aren't realistic. Just convince Joe Biden to run, He'll easily beat Donald Trump. 

Either way we are screwed because we have two parties that both don't want to address our incredible government debt and it is going to come back and bite us in the ass. Trump lowered taxes, which normally I'd fully support, but you can't lower taxes and not cut any spending. Democrats will raise taxes, but then add so much spending that it will offset any addition tax income and then some. We have two parties that are failing us, but our dumbasses continue to blindly follow both of them. So we get what we deserve.


----------



## birthday_massacre

P Thriller said:


> We are in a pretty pathetic state as a country if we are going to have to start choosing between people like Trump and AOC. I guess you really don't have to be qualified to be president anymore as long as you just put your name out there and garner tons of media attention.
> 
> While I'm sure that some on the right are put off by an "unapologetic woman speaking her mind", the rest of us are threatened by her because she is a dumbass who believes in spending tens of trillions of dollars when our country is already in over 20 trillion dollars of debt and thinks that we can just tax the rich to fund all of it (Which has basically been proven that taxing the rich wouldn't even balance our current budget).
> 
> If* the Democrats want to win this election, they really need to stop going to far extreme to the left. People like Bernie and AOC will cost them this election* if they aren't careful because most people have enough common sense to know that their policies aren't realistic. Just convince Joe Biden to run, He'll easily beat Donald Trump.
> 
> Either way we are screwed because we have two parties that both don't want to address our incredible government debt and it is going to come back and bite us in the ass. Trump lowered taxes, which normally I'd fully support, but you can't lower taxes and not cut any spending. Democrats will raise taxes, but then add so much spending that it will offset any addition tax income and then some. We have two parties that are failing us, but our dumbasses continue to blindly follow both of them. So we get what we deserve.


That is where you are wrong. The problem with the dems is they are too far center. More left is where the dems need to be to win.

Sanders is super left wing and is the most popular position in the country. His far left policies like Medicare for all, most of the country agrees with.

The US wants a real populist, and that is people like Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extend Liz Warren

People like AOC and Bernie are what gets people out to vote and they are super popular with the democratic voters.

it's like you are not even living in reality. And yes their policies are realistic, its a joke you claim they are not

Medicare for all would save 2 trillion dollars. The US would be better off with Medicare for all over what we have now

So tell me how that isn't realistic?


----------



## P Thriller

birthday_massacre said:


> That is where you are wrong. The problem with the dems is they are too far center. More left is where the dems need to be to win.
> 
> Sanders is super left wing and is the most popular position in the country. His far left policies like Medicare for all, most of the country agrees with.
> 
> The US wants a real populist, and that is people like Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extend Liz Warren
> 
> People like AOC and Bernie are what gets people out to vote and they are super popular with the democratic voters.
> 
> it's like you are not even living in reality. And yes their policies are realistic, its a joke you claim they are not
> 
> Medicare for all would save 2 trillion dollars. The US would be better off with Medicare for all over what we have now
> 
> So tell me how that isn't realistic?


The "Saving 2 trillion dollars" theory is based off a ridiculous assumption. There was a study released saying that medicare for all would cost 32 trillion dollars, but the Bernie argument is that because Medicare currently pays 40 percent less than private insurers for hospital services, the cost of delivering hospital services to the privately insured could be proportionately reduced simply by having the government rather than insurers pay hospitals for them. But that is based off of assumptions that are not guaranteed to happen. Their 2 Trillion is basically a best case scenario.

Add the 32 trillion dollar price tag for medicare for all to the other list of Democratic Socialist proposals:

Green New Deal (7-10 Trillion)
Federal Jobs Guarantee (6.8 Trillion)
STudent Loan Forgiveness (1.4 Trillion)
Free Public College (800 Billion)
Infrastructure (1 Trillion)
Family Leave (270 Billion)
Social Security Expansion (200 Billion)

This crap adds up. And they they spread this lie that some imaginary ultra rich class is going to pay for it all and that is a load of bull. All of that combined would cost 21 percent of GDP, which doesn't even account for the baseline budget deficit expected to rise on it's own another 7 percent of GDP.

So let's do a hypothetical...Say they impose a 100% tax on all income over 1 million dollars in America. That would raise the budget 3.8% of GDP, nowhere near the 21-28% raise that they would need. As a matter of fact, that insane tax wouldn't even pay for the Green New Deal alone.

SO yes, the Democratic Socialist ideas are completely unrealistic even if they sound great. The dirty secret that no Democratic Socialist talks about is they HAVE TO tax the middle class. You can't fund this stuff by taxing just the "rich". And that isn't even going into all the ways that rich people can get around paying taxes. Our country desperately needs to cut spending and all Bernie and AOC want to do is add never before seen record amounts of spending. Which would be ridiculous in any circumstance but even more ridiculous when your country already has 20 trillion in debt as it is. Bernie has been repeating this "Rich have to pay their fair share" crap but he is a very smart man and he knows the truth. He won't win an election by telling the truth so he'll blame the easy target which is rich people. 

And hopefully nobody takes this as an endorsement for the Republican Party who come with their own entire set of stupid ideas, including the fact that they really haven't come up with anything better to fix these problems either. They whined and whined when Obama was raising the federal debt to crazy numbers but then did nothing when they got in office to change it. We need a party that is willing to do and say the things that nobody wants to hear, we need tough love but no party is going to ever win an election by telling the truth about what our country needs, so we'll just continue pushing this ticking time bomb until it explodes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

P Thriller said:


> The "Saving 2 trillion dollars" theory is based off a ridiculous assumption. There was a study released saying that medicare for all would cost 32 trillion dollars, but the Bernie argument is that because Medicare currently pays 40 percent less than private insurers for hospital services, the cost of delivering hospital services to the privately insured could be proportionately reduced simply by having the government rather than insurers pay hospitals for them. But that is based off of assumptions that are not guaranteed to happen. Their 2 Trillion is basically a best case scenario.
> 
> Add the 32 trillion dollar price tag for medicare for all to the other list of Democratic Socialist proposals:
> 
> Green New Deal (7-10 Trillion)
> Federal Jobs Guarantee (6.8 Trillion)
> STudent Loan Forgiveness (1.4 Trillion)
> Free Public College (800 Billion)
> Infrastructure (1 Trillion)
> Family Leave (270 Billion)
> Social Security Expansion (200 Billion)
> 
> This crap adds up. And they they spread this lie that some imaginary ultra rich class is going to pay for it all and that is a load of bull. All of that combined would cost 21 percent of GDP, which doesn't even account for the baseline budget deficit expected to rise on it's own another 7 percent of GDP.
> 
> So let's do a hypothetical...Say they impose a 100% tax on all income over 1 million dollars in America. That would raise the budget 3.8% of GDP, nowhere near the 21-28% raise that they would need. As a matter of fact, that insane tax wouldn't even pay for the Green New Deal alone.
> 
> SO yes, the Democratic Socialist ideas are completely unrealistic even if they sound great. The dirty secret that no Democratic Socialist talks about is they HAVE TO tax the middle class. You can't fund this stuff by taxing just the "rich". And that isn't even going into all the ways that rich people can get around paying taxes. Our country desperately needs to cut spending and all Bernie and AOC want to do is add never before seen record amounts of spending. Which would be ridiculous in any circumstance but even more ridiculous when your country already has 20 trillion in debt as it is. Bernie has been repeating this "Rich have to pay their fair share" crap but he is a very smart man and he knows the truth. He won't win an election by telling the truth so he'll blame the easy target which is rich people.
> 
> And hopefully nobody takes this as an endorsement for the Republican Party who come with their own entire set of stupid ideas, including the fact that they really haven't come up with anything better to fix these problems either. They whined and whined when Obama was raising the federal debt to crazy numbers but then did nothing when they got in office to change it. We need a party that is willing to do and say the things that nobody wants to hear, we need tough love but no party is going to ever win an election by telling the truth about what our country needs, so we'll just continue pushing this ticking time bomb until it explodes.


The 2 trillion in savings was off the koch brothers study LOL The Mercatus study said that on their own study, Bernie did not come up with that number.

Also you do understand the whole medicare for all costing 32 trillion is not in addition to what it cost now right? 

So you would not be adding that 32 trillion since again its a savings fo 2 trillion from what we are paying now. Stop ignoring that

So that 2 trillion in savings could go cover studen loan forgiveness and free public college.

Not to mention you want to cover the cost of some of the other stuff you could easy cut miltary spending to cover some of it. 

It would be super easy to cover the cost of all of that stuff if they reallocate the money from places its being wasted or overspend, again like the military.

You can also go with the 70% marginal tax rate for over 10 million, tax wall street and close all the loop holes that let billion dollar companies like Amazon pay zero in taxes

It can easily be done.

Also, Bernie Sanders talked about taxing the middle class in the last primaries so don't pretend it's not talked about. You cant even be honest about that

Its also cute how you said the US needs to cut spending but failed to say why its because of the giant tax cuts for the rich. You take those tax cuts away and tax them more and you don't have to cut spending as much.


----------



## Draykorinee

I highly doubt anyone citing $32 trillion for Medicare in a vacuum has any interest in having an honest discussion.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> The 2 trillion in savings was off the koch brothers study LOL The Mercatus study said that on their own study, Bernie did not come up with that number.
> 
> Also you do understand the whole medicare for all costing 32 trillion is not in addition to what it cost now right?
> 
> So you would not be adding that 32 trillion since again its a savings fo 2 trillion from what we are paying now. Stop ignoring that
> 
> So that 2 trillion in savings could go cover studen loan forgiveness and free public college.
> 
> Not to mention you want to cover the cost of some of the other stuff you could easy cut miltary spending to cover some of it.
> 
> It would be super easy to cover the cost of all of that stuff if they reallocate the money from places its being wasted or overspend, again like the military.
> 
> You can also go with the 70% marginal tax rate for over 10 million, tax wall street and close all the loop holes that let billion dollar companies like Amazon pay zero in taxes
> 
> It can easily be done.
> 
> Also, Bernie Sanders talked about taxing the middle class in the last primaries so don't pretend it's not talked about. You cant even be honest about that
> 
> Its also cute how you said the US needs to cut spending but failed to say why its because of the giant tax cuts for the rich. You take those tax cuts away and tax them more and you don't have to cut spending as much.


Broken calculators


----------



## P Thriller

birthday_massacre said:


> The 2 trillion in savings was off the koch brothers study LOL The Mercatus study said that on their own study, Bernie did not come up with that number.
> 
> Also you do understand the whole medicare for all costing 32 trillion is not in addition to what it cost now right?
> 
> So you would not be adding that 32 trillion since again its a savings fo 2 trillion from what we are paying now. Stop ignoring that
> 
> So that 2 trillion in savings could go cover studen loan forgiveness and free public college.
> 
> Not to mention you want to cover the cost of some of the other stuff you could easy cut miltary spending to cover some of it.
> 
> It would be super easy to cover the cost of all of that stuff if they reallocate the money from places its being wasted or overspend, again like the military.
> 
> You can also go with the 70% marginal tax rate for over 10 million, tax wall street and close all the loop holes that let billion dollar companies like Amazon pay zero in taxes
> 
> It can easily be done.
> 
> Also, Bernie Sanders talked about taxing the middle class in the last primaries so don't pretend it's not talked about. You cant even be honest about that
> 
> Its also cute how you said the US needs to cut spending but failed to say why its because of the giant tax cuts for the rich. You take those tax cuts away and tax them more and you don't have to cut spending as much.


I understand where the "saving 2 trillion" comes from but it is a false narrative and completely cherry picked by Bernie. The author of that report even said so himself. That same exact report came up with an alternative scenario where the plan would cost 3.3 trillion more compared to what we currently have in place. The only way that they could get to that 2 trillion dollars in savings is based off of a very generous best case scenario that the author himself said is unlikely. 

And if you do that math, a 70% marginal tax on over 10 Million only amounts to 700 Billion dollars in additional income. And that doesn't even factor in that these rich people could easily report less income and find a way to not pay all that amount. Even if they did, that is nowhere near enough money to fund what they want to fund. 

And I agree with the idea of cutting military, but you can't just cut military. You have to cut entitlements whether people like it or not. Military only accounts for 15% of the total U.S spending. Medicare/Health, Social Security, Unemployment and Labor account for 60% of U.S Spending. Cuts have to be made across the board. 

And the recent "Tax cuts for the rich" aren't the reason that the U.S needs to cut spending. Obama ran a huge deficit every single year before those new tax laws even came into play. U.S needs to spend less because they are irresponsible and don't know how to balance a budget.


----------



## jeffatron

birthday_massacre said:


> That is where you are wrong. The problem with the dems is they are too far center. More left is where the dems need to be to win.
> 
> Sanders is super left wing and is the most popular position in the country. His far left policies like Medicare for all, most of the country agrees with.
> 
> The US wants a real populist, and that is people like Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extend Liz Warren
> 
> People like AOC and Bernie are what gets people out to vote and they are super popular with the democratic voters.
> 
> it's like you are not even living in reality. And yes their policies are realistic, its a joke you claim they are not
> 
> Medicare for all would save 2 trillion dollars. The US would be better off with Medicare for all over what we have now
> 
> So tell me how that isn't realistic?


Some people just won't listen to logic, don't worry about it. But hey, you can just move up here! We have free healthcare and technically pay less federal taxes than the U.S , contrary to popular belief! XP


----------



## P Thriller

jeffatron said:


> Some people just won't listen to logic, don't worry about it. But hey, you can just move up here! We have free healthcare and technically pay less federal taxes than the U.S , contrary to popular belief! XP


When you factor in Provincial taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, carbon taxes, import taxes, alcohol taxes etc. A much larger percentage of Canadians income goes to taxes than Americans. 

Plus Canadian healthcare is free but it sucks just as much as the U.S healthcare (They both rank last and second to last) and Canada also ranks dead last in terms of timeliness of health care. To the point where in 2014 (The most recent estimate) over 50,000 Canadians crossed the border into the U.S to seek health care beacause of how long they would have to wait and Ontario spent over 100 million dollars to redirect patients to hospitals in the U.S because they would have died waiting for a transplant in Canada. 

So things aren't so peachy up North either.


----------



## birthday_massacre

P Thriller said:


> I understand where the "saving 2 trillion" comes from but it is a false narrative and completely cherry picked by Bernie. The author of that report even said so himself. That same exact report came up with an alternative scenario where the plan would cost 3.3 trillion more compared to what we currently have in place. The only way that they could get to that 2 trillion dollars in savings is based off of a very generous best case scenario that the author himself said is unlikely.
> 
> And if you do that math, a 70% marginal tax on over 10 Million only amounts to 700 Billion dollars in additional income. And that doesn't even factor in that these rich people could easily report less income and find a way to not pay all that amount. Even if they did, that is nowhere near enough money to fund what they want to fund.
> 
> And I agree with the idea of cutting military, but you can't just cut military. You have to cut entitlements whether people like it or not. Military only accounts for 15% of the total U.S spending. Medicare/Health, Social Security, Unemployment and Labor account for 60% of U.S Spending. Cuts have to be made across the board.
> 
> And the recent "Tax cuts for the rich" aren't the reason that the U.S needs to cut spending. Obama ran a huge deficit every single year before those new tax laws even came into play. U.S needs to spend less because they are irresponsible and don't know how to balance a budget.


it's not cherry-picked. The author was anti medicare for all and it still came out to a savings but of course he will say its unlikely, he was paid for the Koch brothers to say that yet his own report said it would be 2 trillions in savings. Keep ignoring that.

That 700 billion is just one way to help pay for some of those policies to mentioned. Again there is also closing loopholes, taxing wall street, and cutting the military budget. It can be easily done. And no one said just cutting military spending would pay for all of these policies. Stop making strawmen arguments. Cutting military spending would help cover the cost of some of them. 

why do you keep including healthcare for US spending? AGAIN we would be saving money on Medicare for all. 

And yes Trumps tax cuts for the rich are why we need to cut spending. Obama got the US back on track after the disaster Bush was and Trump went and blew it all up again.



P Thriller said:


> When you factor in Provincial taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, carbon taxes, import taxes, alcohol taxes etc. A much larger percentage of Canadians income goes to taxes than Americans.
> 
> Plus Canadian healthcare is free but it sucks just as much as the U.S healthcare (They both rank last and second to last) and Canada also ranks dead last in terms of timeliness of health care. To the point where in 2014 (The most recent estimate) over 50,000 Canadians crossed the border into the U.S to seek health care beacause of how long they would have to wait and Ontario spent over 100 million dollars to redirect patients to hospitals in the U.S because they would have died waiting for a transplant in Canada.
> 
> So things aren't so peachy up North either.


always love when people bring up wait times for healthcare in Canada. That is because in Canada they put the people who need it most fist over the people that just want the cosmetic things done.

No one dies in Canda for lack of healthcare like they do in the US


----------



## jeffatron

P Thriller said:


> When you factor in Provincial taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, carbon taxes, import taxes, alcohol taxes etc. A much larger percentage of Canadians income goes to taxes than Americans.
> 
> Plus Canadian healthcare is free but it sucks just as much as the U.S healthcare (They both rank last and second to last) and Canada also ranks dead last in terms of timeliness of health care. To the point where in 2014 (The most recent estimate) over 50,000 Canadians crossed the border into the U.S to seek health care beacause of how long they would have to wait and Ontario spent over 100 million dollars to redirect patients to hospitals in the U.S because they would have died waiting for a transplant in Canada.
> 
> So things aren't so peachy up North either.



Oh I don't disagree, I was being a bit tongue in cheek for sure  . But we still have it better, since you know, we don't die if we're poor and are sick here. Our wait times are crazy no doubt, and there's been a TON of fiscal mismanagement (good on you for pointing out Ontario, it's horrible) . A LOT of that though is due to rising costs of baby boomers and just not enough doctors. 

Regarding taxes, I made sure to just say Federal, since obviously provincial is so dependent (Alberta has no provincial tax, as an example). 

Still, all issues aside, free not perfect healthcare>having to pay if you're sick.Also we pretty much have a two-tiered system with plenty of private clinics for those rich folks who can't wait. 

In all seriousness though, I was mostly poking fun. Our system is FAR from perfect or the best. Many places in Europe are laughing at us for sure



birthday_massacre said:


> always love when people bring up wait times for healthcare in Canada. That is because in Canada they put the people who need it most fist over the people that just want the cosmetic things done.
> 
> No one dies in Canda for lack of healthcare like they do in the US


I'd also point out that, which i didn't in my last reply, that these wait times are also due to the lack of family doctors and clinics available to the general public. This plus jerkoffs who go to the emergency room for a freaking cold clog up the wait times like crazy. Add to that less doctors and an aging population, and it's an issue a lot of modern countries are facing. 

Not saying our system is perfect, far from it. And it's mismanaged a.f like any other government run program, but I agree fundamentally with you.

flawed free health care > letting people die because they are poor/going broke because they are sick


----------



## birthday_massacre

jeffatron said:


> Oh I don't disagree, I was being a bit tongue in cheek for sure  . But we still have it better, since you know, we don't die if we're poor and are sick here. Our wait times are crazy no doubt, and there's been a TON of fiscal mismanagement (good on you for pointing out Ontario, it's horrible) . A LOT of that though is due to rising costs of baby boomers and just not enough doctors.
> 
> Regarding taxes, I made sure to just say Federal, since obviously provincial is so dependent (Alberta has no provincial tax, as an example).
> 
> Still, all issues aside, free not perfect healthcare>having to pay if you're sick.Also we pretty much have a two-tiered system with plenty of private clinics for those rich folks who can't wait.
> 
> In all seriousness though, I was mostly poking fun. Our system is FAR from perfect or the best. Many places in Europe are laughing at us for sure


I always laugh when people talk about wait times in the Canada and pretend there are no wait times in the US, especially if you are poor.


----------



## Pratchett

P Thriller said:


> We are in a pretty pathetic state as a country if we are going to have to start choosing between people like Trump and AOC. I guess you really don't have to be qualified to be president anymore as long as you just put your name out there and garner tons of media attention.


It just goes to show that by and large people are stupid and incredibly short sighted.

Every election cycle they happily settle for voting for the lesser of two evils, without putting any thought whatsoever into the fact that they are still choosing evil when they do so. And every time they do it, the level of evil that has become acceptable just keeps getting higher and higher. That's how we ended up with Trump vs. Clinton, and that's why we should be really concerned about what is coming down the road if people don't get their heads out of their collective asses.


----------



## Reaper

P Thriller said:


> When you factor in *Provincial taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, carbon taxes, import taxes, alcohol taxes *etc. A much larger percentage of Canadians income goes to taxes than Americans.


I highlighted the ones we also pay and in some cases and states more than Canadians.

I can't believe that you even made this argument and thought that "yup, Americans don't pay any of those". 

Are you serious?

The real difference is in that our government is more corrupt and less efficient than the Canadian government. Overall. 

Our healthcare codes and system is completely broken. Our price structure especially in the healthcare industry is completely broken and the cost of Universal healthcare is calculated using a broken price structure hence why it appears to be so much costlier than it is. 

It's like producing a mango for 5 bucks, selling it for 1000 bucks and then saying that it'll cost a 10 people 10,000 bucks to get mangos. (I'm being a little hyperbolic but essentially this is one of the reasons why the healthcare calculations here are sketchy af)


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> I highlighted the ones we also pay and in some cases and states more than Canadians.
> 
> I can't believe that you even made this argument and thought that "yup, Americans don't pay any of those".
> 
> Are you serious?


To play devils advocate he did say when including those Canada pays a *much* larger tax percentage. So he's not saying US don't pay it, but that theirs is *much* less

This is of course mostly hyperbole based on speculation only, especially as its nearly impossible to judge due taxation being so variable across states. There are plenty of states where property tax is higher than in Canada.

Yes, Canadians and social democracies will always pay more tax by virtue of our single payer systems but we all know Americans pay more for their healthcare and whilst its not a 'tax' you either pay it or you don't get treatment and die. So whilst the government aren't pointing a gun at your head saying pay us tax, the insurance companies are doing it for them, and making a giant hash of it too.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> To play devils advocate he did say when including those Canada pays a *much* larger tax percentage. So he's not saying US don't pay it, but that theirs is *much* less
> 
> This is of course mostly hyperbole based on speculation only, especially as its nearly impossible to judge due taxation being so variable across states. There are plenty of states where property tax is higher than in Canada.
> 
> Yes, Canadians and social democracies will always pay more tax by virtue of our single payer systems but we all know Americans pay more for their healthcare and whilst its not a 'tax' you either pay it or you don't get treatment and die. So whilst the government aren't pointing a gun at your head saying pay us tax, the insurance companies are doing it for them, and making a giant hash of it too.


I wasn't inclined to do the research there and then (I think it was 2am when I made that post) but Canada and the US have "swapped" places when it comes to who pays more or less taxes over the years and it's definitely true that a lot of states here collect more taxes than some provinces in Canada etc etc. 

The real difference is that even when Canadians have paid fewer taxes than the States over certain years (and yeah, they have paid fewer overall taxes than Americans over certain years), they have still received far more benefits than Americans ever have for the taxes they paid. Their mother benefits have remained constant for decades, their healthcare has been a permanent fixture and their economy while slowly growing has still been able to keep up with all of it. Their emergency system runs on a triage method where if you have a serious condition you do get bumped up the list and no wait times. I remember when I needed an emergency Apendicitis surgery ... They moved me to the operating table within 10 minutes of reaching the emergency room. 

There really is no comparison. Canadians receive more benefits and while their economy may not be performing at peak levels it doesn't matter because an economy running at peak says absolutely nothing about the living conditions of its citizens. 

Here in America we're trained to look at corporate profits, GPD and stock markets as some sort of national success, but ignore the metrics that matter to the rest of the population.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://*********************/2019/03/04/ocasio-cortez-justice-democrats/

Why socialists always gotta be corrupt how very sad

lol seriously the Daily Caller is censored? Good to know milquetoast centrist Republicans are like Voldemort to the people running this site I can't even :heston

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-diverting-campaign-cash-to-his-own-companies


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> https://*********************/2019/03/04/ocasio-cortez-justice-democrats/
> 
> Why socialists always gotta be corrupt how very sad
> 
> lol seriously the Daily Caller is censored? Good to know milquetoast centrist Republicans are like Voldemort to the people running this site I can't even :heston
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-diverting-campaign-cash-to-his-own-companies


AOC is dumb so don't see her involved with this.. but if she is would be pretty funny.

There's a pic of Bernie driving a Ferrari around with his campaign bus circulating that's pretty funny too. What will he spend his campaign money on after he loses? :laugh:


----------



## deepelemblues

Miss Sally said:


> AOC is dumb so don't see her involved with this.. but if she is would be pretty funny.
> 
> There's a pic of Bernie driving a Ferrari around with his campaign bus circulating that's pretty funny too. What will he spend his campaign money on after he loses? :laugh:


Just like Jill Stein

NO REFUNDS

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/05/ocasio-cortez-omar-israel-1203506

Oh what a surprise a socialist is swooping in to defend an anti-Semite :eyeroll

Bug-Eyes needs all the allies she can get tho after the little McCarthyist contretemps about a "list" being made by her staff of Democrats who aren't socialist enough really pissed off most of the Democrat House caucus


----------



## Draykorinee

The stupidity of calling people like AoC socialist will never end. Neither will the idea that democratic socialists can't have wealth without being hypocrites. The whole idea of social democracy is built around there being rich people who pay high taxes not a lack of rich people ffs.

Who gives a fuck if Bernie owns a Ferrari

Meanwhile, the absolute height of stupidty -



> Calling it “hypocrisy,” Hannity was practically flabbergasted that Sanders “was happy to greet his supporters from”—hold for pregnant pause—“behind a barrier!”


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Longer version of video Camille Punk showed earlier


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> The stupidity of calling people like AoC socialist will never end. Neither will the idea that democratic socialists can't have wealth without being hypocrites. The whole idea of social democracy is built around there being rich people who pay high taxes not a lack of rich people ffs.
> 
> Who gives a fuck if Bernie owns a Ferrari
> 
> Meanwhile, the absolute height of stupidty -


It doesn't matter that AOC isn't a Socialist, she thinks she's one and portrays herself as such so people call her that. 

It's just good that she keeps exposing herself.

As for Bernie in a Ferrari I don't care, I knew he was full of shit from the get go. The thing is he's talking about fat cats and the 1% yet he's living it up like one. He's like a televangelist preaching about the poor while begging for donations while wearing his gold Rolex. 


Here's a thought... Bernie is pro-Israel and I believe he has citizenship there.. Makes me wonder how much AOC would support him when she just came out in support of Omar and Omar hates Israel. I mean more and more from that group are coming out as anti-Israel.. Makes you wonder. :hmmm


----------



## DaRealNugget

:lmao at comparing bernie sanders to televangelists :lmao

bernie derangement syndrome is real.

congress members get paid ~$170,000 a year, and sanders has been in congress since 1990. nothing hypocritical about being smart with your money. last i checked, he wasn't exploiting workers, voting against tax raises on the rich, or hiding his money in oversea tax havens.

this idea that you can't speak out about income inequality while having wealth, or speak out against climate change while flying in a jet, or have a critique of capitalism while participating in a capitalist society, is complete and utter horseshit. 

also, unsurprisingly, that ferrari story is bullshit that circulated in 2016.


----------



## Reaper

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/06/bernie-sanders-black-voters-2020/



> BERNIE SANDERS IS BEATING KAMALA HARRIS 2-1 AMONG BLACK DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS, NEW POLL FINDS
> 
> THREE WEEKS AFTER launching his presidential campaign, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading all other announced candidates in support from black voters, a new poll finds. The only potential candidate who polled better with African-Americans than Sanders, according to the poll by Morning Consult, is former Vice President Joe Biden, who has not announced a campaign.
> 
> Despite a persistent notion that his supporters are disproportionately white male “bros,” the new survey suggests that Sanders is actually slightly more popular among black Democratic voters than white ones, indicating that the narrative that developed during the 2016 campaign may no longer hold, if it ever did.
> 
> Sanders’s support among black voters, at 28 percent, puts him in second place among that demographic, behind Biden, at 32 percent. He trailed Biden 31-25 among whites.
> 
> There appears to be a strong class element at play in the finding. The same poll found that the demographics Sanders is least popular with — at 19 and 17 percent, respectively — are Democrats who make more than $100,000 per year and Democrats who have post-graduate degrees (two qualities that typically, if not always, overlap). Because of structural wealth and income gaps, that population is heavily white.
> 
> Sanders, meanwhile, receives his strongest support support from those making less than $50,000 — a group that is, for the same reasons, much more diverse. The poll found that 30 percent of those with the lowest incomes backed Sanders.
> 
> Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., meanwhile, has half as much support, at 14 percent, among black voters as Sanders, according to supplementary polling data provided to The Intercept by Morning Consult. The findings are drawn from a sample of 2,587 black, likely Democratic primary voters.
> 
> New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker comes in fourth at 6 percent among black voters. Elizabeth Warren and Beto O’Rourke both registered 4 percent, while Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Attorney General Eric Holder, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, and others all clocked in at 1 percent. (Holder and Bloomberg have said they’re not running.)
> 
> Of course, Harris’s comparatively low poll numbers might be less reflective of her appeal than the fact that she has lower name recognition than Sanders. But name recognition is the same argument Sanders supporters used to explain his inability to win over black voters in 2015 and 2016 — something he’s making a concerted effort to fix this time around.
> 
> Compared to Sanders in 2015, Harris is already fairly well-known among the Democratic primary electorate, with 79 percent having heard of her. (52 percent view her favorably, to just 11 percent unfavorably.) It remains to be seen whether an argument that was casually dismissed when made by Sanders supporters will now be exploited by supporters of Harris.
> 
> The preference for Sanders among black voters might be better explained by ideology than identity. February’s Harvard-Harris poll found that 56 percent of black voters preferred a “mostly socialist” economic system, against 44 percent who want a “mostly capitalist” one.
> 
> The findings pose both challenges and opportunities for Sanders. Wealthy and middle-class Democrats tend to be more likely to vote than the working class and poor, but Sanders is running a 50-state field and digital program that aims to unleash over a million Sanders volunteers to register and turn out voters who have stayed home in the past. That work could then pay dividends in the general election, which was decided in three states by just tens of thousands of votes in 2016.
> 
> Registering and turning out new voters has long been the vision of progressive campaigns. But because it’s extraordinarily difficult, most campaigns stick to the traditional approach of raising big money to pay for television ads that persuade undecided but dependable voters. The upside of the Sanders strategy is that it could reshape the political electorate, creating new possibilities for his agenda in Washington.
> 
> The Morning Consult poll found Harris and Warren trailing Biden and Sanders. Among all Democratic primary voters, Biden, Sanders, Harris, and Warren clocked in at 31, 27, 11, and 7 percent, respectively. Morning Consult also divided their sample into early primary states and found the ranking didn’t change, though the numbers shifted slightly, to 34, 29, 8 and 6 percent.
> 
> Join Our Newsletter
> Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.
> I’m in
> It’s difficult to discern an ideological pattern here. The second choice of a plurality of Sanders voters was Biden, while the same was true in reverse, even though the two politicians have radically different politics. The leading second pick among Warren voters was Sanders.
> 
> All the typical caveats apply: This is just one survey; the first votes won’t be cast for nearly a year; much could still change; and on, and on. But the findings map with other similar polls and suggest that anybody watching the presidential campaign solely through the lens of Twitter may be in for a shock when the votes begin to be counted — whether they’re armed with a stopwatch or not.


So much for the "Bernie is just a white dude and not popular with minorities" bullshit. 

Good to see that more and more people are seeing through the democrat's agenda to push Kamala as the black hillary.


----------



## Stephen90

Ben Shapiro calling everyone an anti Semite on Twitter is funny as fuck.
https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1102938799196168192


----------



## Draykorinee

Stephen90 said:


> Ben Shapiro calling everyone an anti Semite on Twitter is funny as fuck.
> https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1102938799196168192


It's so hard to know who is actually antisemitic nowadays seeing as everyone's getting labeled as one.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> It's so hard to know who is actually antisemitic nowadays seeing as everyone's getting labeled as one.


Oh come on now. It's pretty obvious that someone who supports a movement (BDS) which seeks to punish all Israelis for the percieved crimes of a government (without ever talking about the historical context or the complexities of the conflict) is at least partially anti-Semitic. 

The punishment of non-arab israelis is already happening in academic circles if you really pay attention to what BDS activists are doing. So we're already seeing its consequences in America. 

Omar is a product if decades of anti-Jew and anti-Israeli brainwashing. She claims to be anti-Israeli but there's pretty obviously more there. 

She's slippery af kinda like how far right racists are though. But they speak a similar language. You have to have the ability to put their comments in the right context.

The muslim vs Israel (really it's about the yahoodis) "anti-Semitic" undertones are proudly displayed in a language designed to distract from where that core disdain really comes from.

No group that has ever been dehumanized by another as a Nation escaped the wrath of those who would take matters into their own hands.


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...te-anti-semitism-with-legitimate-criticism-of

Sanders defends Omar: Can't equate anti-Semitism with 'legitimate criticism' of Israel

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) defended Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Wednesday amid an avalanche of criticism she’s received over comments about Israel that some have slammed as anti-Semitic.

Sanders, who is running for president in 2020 and in 2016 became the first Jewish politician to win a state's presidential primary, said he fears a House resolution intended to rebuke Omar over the comments could end up stifling legitimate debate over the Israeli government’s policies.

“Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace,” he said in a statement to The Hill. 

“What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate," he continued. “That's wrong.”

Omar finds herself in hot water as House leadership weighs a resolution condemning a wide range of discrimination that is intended to rebuke her recent comments. Democrats held a heated internal meeting Wednesday to determine if the legislation should single out the Minnesota progressive.

Omar sparked controversy last week for saying pro-Israel groups are pushing for “allegiance to a foreign country,” mimicking historical charges of dual loyalty that have historically been levied against Jews.

She first sparked bipartisan ire last month when she said some representatives’ support for Israel was fueled by donations from pro-Israel lobbying groups, saying it was “all about the Benjamins baby” and later noting that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee donated to members of Congress who criticized her. 

House Democrats faced criticism of their proposed resolution because of its initial sole focus on anti-Semitism over discrimination faced by other groups. They have delayed a vote on the legislation as the wording is adjusted.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) also said Democrats have no intention of removing Omar from the panel, despite calls from many Republicans to do so.

President Trump panned House Democrats for not taking a stronger stance against Omar’s statements, calling their response “shameful.”


----------



## yeahbaby!

I'm sorry but can anyone else hear about Kamala and not see anything but:


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Oh come on now. It's pretty obvious that someone who supports a movement (BDS) which seeks to punish all Israelis for the percieved crimes of a government (without ever talking about the historical context or the complexities of the conflict) is at least partially anti-Semitic.


I don't know enough about Omar to have an opinion I was talking more about the use of anti-semetic to label anyone and everyone recently. She may well be.


----------



## DOPA

Considering the type of groups Ilhan Omar is linked to which I laid out earlier in the thread which are essentially Islamist and Extremist in nature as well as blatantly anti-semitic, I can almost safely say that she is one too. And I say that as someone who initially gave her a pass because too often we see people labelled anti-semitic for simply criticizing the Israeli government.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mazon-cuts-minimum-wage-workers-hours-changes



> In response to public pressure and increasing scrutiny over the pay of its warehouse workers, Amazon enacted a $15 minimum wage for all its employees on 1 November, including workers at grocery chain Whole Foods, which it purchased in 2017.
> 
> All Whole Foods employees paid less than $15 an hour saw their wages increase to at least that, while all other team members received a $1 an hour wage increase and team leaders received a $2 an hour increase.
> 
> *But since the wage increase, Whole Food employees have told the Guardian that they have experienced widespread cuts that have reduced schedule shifts across many stores, often negating wage gains for employees.
> 
> “My hours went from 30 to 20 a week,” said one Whole Foods employee in Illinois.*
> 
> Workers interviewed for this story were reluctant to speak on the record for fear of retaliation.
> 
> *The Illinois-based worker explained that once the $15 minimum wage was enacted, part-time employee hours at their store were cut from an average of 30 to 21 hours a week, and full-time employees saw average hours reduced from 37.5 hours to 34.5 hours. The worker provided schedules from 1 November to the end of January 2019, showing hours for workers in their department significantly decreased as the department’s percentage of the entire store labor budget stayed relatively the same.*
> 
> “We just have to work faster to meet the same goals in less time,” the worker said.
> 
> An internal email shared by the employee from their department manager cited the across-the-board shift cuts as “the direct result of guidance from our regional team”.
> 
> *In Maryland, another Whole Foods worker said their regional management is forcing stores to cut full-time employee schedules by four hours, to 36 hours a week. “This hours cut makes that raise pointless as people are losing more than they gained and we rely on working full shifts,” the worker said.*
> 
> Another Whole Foods employee in Oregon noted: “At my store all full-time team members are 36 to 38 hours per week now. So what workers do if they want a full 40 hours is take a little bit of their paid time off each week to fill their hours to 40. Doing the same thing myself.”
> 
> The labor budget and schedule cuts at Whole Foods in the wake of the minimum wage increase appear to be similar to changes Amazon made after it raised the pay of warehouse workers to a minimum wage of $15 an hour. That move was widely praised but Amazon also cut stock vesting plans and bonuses that had provided extra pay to some workers.
> 
> *Some Whole Foods workers say the cuts have led to understaffing issues. “Things that have made it more noticeable are the long lines, the need to call for cashier and bagging assistance, and customers not being able to find help in certain departments because not enough are scheduled, and we are a big store,” said one worker in California.
> 
> “Just about every person on our team has complained about their hours being cut. Some have had to look for other jobs as they can’t make ends meet,” they added.*
> 
> In September 2018, several Whole Foods workers organized the group Whole Worker, with the goals of forming a union and providing workers a resource to organize since Amazon took over. Whole Foods began training management to fight back against union organization shortly after the group went public with a mass email to Whole Foods employees throughout the United States.
> 
> *“There are many team members working at Whole Foods today whose total compensation is actually less than what it was before the wage increase due to these labor reductions,” said a Whole Worker spokesperson in an email to the Guardian.*
> 
> Whole Foods did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this story.



Well imagine my shock.

In all seriousness, there was always going to be unintended consequences with this wage hike. There always is when a minimum wage is implemented from the top down. It's going to suck for those being placed in a position to work less hours because of the hourly pay increase and therefore take home less money and struggle more.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

yeahbaby! said:


> I'm sorry but can anyone else hear about Kamala and not see anything but:


How can you not?

Especially considering his shoot name is James Harris



Rolo Tomassi said:


> Considering the type of groups Ilhan Omar is linked to which I laid out earlier in the thread which are essentially Islamist and Extremist in nature as well as blatantly anti-semitic, I can almost safely say that she is one too. And I say that as someone who initially gave her a pass because too often we see people labelled anti-semitic for simply criticizing the Israeli government.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mazon-cuts-minimum-wage-workers-hours-changes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well imagine my shock.
> 
> In all seriousness, there was always going to be unintended consequences with this wage hike. There always is when a minimum wage is implemented from the top down. It's going to suck for those being placed in a position to work less hours because of the hourly pay increase and therefore take home less money and struggle more.


I learned a lesson very early in business. 

The last things companies want to do is raise pricing, or lose money, because bpth look bad to the people they cater to the most.

So when they start losing money, the first people to feel the squeeze is always the employees, no matter what.

Off topic: great username, the Godfather is the man


----------



## Draykorinee

Rolo Tomassi said:


> Well imagine my shock.
> 
> In all seriousness, there was always going to be unintended consequences with this wage hike. There always is when a minimum wage is implemented from the top down. It's going to suck for those being placed in a position to work less hours because of the hourly pay increase and therefore take home less money and struggle more.


Its a nice way for a big company to save money and then blame the wage rises, I'm not shocked at all by this tactic.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Rolo Tomassi said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mazon-cuts-minimum-wage-workers-hours-changes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well imagine my shock.
> 
> In all seriousness, there was always going to be unintended consequences with this wage hike. There always is when a minimum wage is implemented from the top down. It's going to suck for those being placed in a position to work less hours because of the hourly pay increase and therefore take home less money and struggle more.


Les stop pretending wage hikes have anything to do with layoffs. Those companies would have laid off workers anyways. We saw it with the Trump tax cuts. These companies just use it as an excuse.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Les stop pretending wage hikes have anything to do with layoffs. Those companies would have laid off workers anyways. We saw it with the Trump tax cuts. These companies just use it as an excuse.


I dont get why you keep repeating this point, when no one has said any differently.

The value of the workers is less than what the business is willing to pay. When the cost exceeds the value, then businesses don't want to pay it.

It's no different than when people stopped buying tv's at insane prices, because there was no reason to do it anymore. 

Companies think their money can be used in better places than their employees, i don't know how anyone can stop them from acting on that feeling.


----------



## CamillePunk

Is there anything more cucked than a Jewish man defending Jew-hating Muslims? :lol

Meanwhile in the UK



https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/muslims-halt-pro-gay-curriculum-in-uk-school



> Muslims halt pro-gay curriculum in UK school
> 
> BIRMINGHAM, March 6, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – LGBTQ lessons have been halted at the Parkfield Community School in Birmingham, England, following weeks of controversy and backlash from angry Muslim parents.
> 
> The move came after 600 students, about 80% of the school population, were reportedly yanked out of class by furious Muslim parents who objected to having LGBTQ ideology “aggressively” taught to primary school children. The "No Outsiders" curriculum has been suspended until after Easter at the school while consultations with parents continue. Pupils were taken from class, according to Alum Rock Community Forum, because the curriculum was “undermining of parental rights and aggressively promoting homosexuality.” Parents have objected especially to the gender identity portion of the curriculum.
> 
> The trustee board of Excelsior Multi Academy Trust, which operates the school, confirmed in a letter that LGBTQ lessons would be halted until the end of April. The letter called on parents to ask children about "No Outsiders" and claimed that “the children are very clear there is no focus on one aspect of equality, rather No Outsiders teaches that everyone is welcome." It also said, in light of new government legislation to make relationships education compulsory in primary schools from September 2020, it will be consulting with parents to develop its policy and curriculum on the subject.
> 
> Until the publication of the government guidelines in February, parents and faith-based schools had been able to opt-out of sex education. Under the new guidelines, parents can opt-out their children until the year before their 16th birthday. Children as young as 5 will learn about same-sex relationships and receive lessons seeking to normalize transgender ideology. In a statement, Education Secretary Damian Hinds said that sex education “must be grounded in a firm understanding and valuing of positive relationships, and respect for others, from primary age.” Amanda Spielman, who heads the office which inspects English schools, said in February that all children should learn that same-sex relationships are normal.
> 
> The school, which has approximately 740 pupils, is located in a predominantly Muslim area in the industrial city in the British Midlands. Headteacher Andrew Moffat, an avowed homosexual, claims to have received threatening emails. Moffat piloted the LGBTQ curriculum in 2014 at the school, which was bolstered by the school’s sex and relationship education (SRE) lessons.
> 
> Alum Rock Community Forum has claimed that parent’s concerns, protests, and a petition have been “arrogantly ignored” by school authorities. Protesters claim that Moffat is "promoting... personal beliefs and convictions about universal acceptability of homosexuality as being normal and morally correct."
> 
> According to the BBC, the school is now denying that the parents’ protests had anything to do with the suspension of the LGBTQ curriculum. A spokesperson said that the "No Outsiders" program is an integral part of life at the school and that it always planned to stop the classes at half-term. However, the spokesperson said that the school recognizes a need for parents and officials to discuss how to implement teaching about The Equality Act of 2010.
> 
> In early February, about 100 people gathered outside the school to protest against the school’s LGBTQ curriculum. Parents complained that the course was inappropriate for children. Chanting “say no to Moffat!”, protesters accused the headteacher of promoting his "personal beliefs."
> 
> Designed by Moffat at the school in 2014, the No Outsiders curriculum ostensibly sought to teach children about different lifeways. According to Moffat, dozens of British schools use the program. In the past, Moffat resigned from a teaching job when Christian parents objected to lessons about so-called homophobia.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103718078980997121
:lauren


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I dont get why you keep repeating this point, when no one has said any differently.
> 
> The value of the workers is less than what the business is willing to pay. When the cost exceeds the value, then businesses don't want to pay it.
> 
> It's no different than when people stopped buying tv's at insane prices, because there was no reason to do it anymore.
> 
> Companies think their money can be used in better places than their employees, i don't know how anyone can stop them from acting on that feeling.


The post I was replying to did LOL


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> The post I was replying to did LOL


Did you read the post above you? I am guessing no.

This is what it says:



> Well imagine my shock.
> 
> In all seriousness, there was always going to be unintended consequences with this wage hike. There always is when a minimum wage is implemented from the top down. It's going to suck for those being placed in a position to work less hours because of the hourly pay increase and therefore take home less money and struggle more.


Basically that companies are going to not prioritize workers over profit, unless you and I are reading things completely differently.

Where is the "excuse" made. It doesn't even mention higher ups in the article


----------



## DOPA

Draykorinee said:


> Its a nice way for a big company to save money and then blame the wage rises, I'm not shocked at all by this tactic.


Well it's either that or they'll raise prices on their goods and services so consumers have to pay more, which is a bigger risk in some ways as they could potentially lose market share to other companies. Even if it's a small one, they may not chance it which is what we are seeing here.

Middle management is often under pressure also to stay within their respective budgets, so if their employees suddenly have had their wages raised by a significant amount, that's a significant extra amount of money they have to find each month, which is often in the context of an annual budget. Multiple that by dozens if not hundreds and it all adds up. It's a lose lose situation. They'll have to cut back whilst also struggle with shortages in terms of keeping up with demand at work. Which is exactly what is happening here.

You may think it's an excuse but it's certainly a painful reality.

Either way, someone loses. Either employees lose by not earning as much money due to shift cuts (or lose their job entirely) or consumers lose by having to pay more for the product. But a company isn't going to simply take losses to pay their employees more, especially if they have shareholders and a board of directors to answer to. They'll find a balance somehow.



birthday_massacre said:


> Les stop pretending wage hikes have anything to do with layoffs. Those companies would have laid off workers anyways. We saw it with the Trump tax cuts. These companies just use it as an excuse.


The big problem in terms of wage growth in regards to the tax cuts is that a number of months before hand, bigger companies were able and encouraged to engage in stock buy backs where stock of companies that were taken over by the government were bought back by those companies at a discount price which artificially shot up the value of those set assets. Which is the largest reason why the stock market has been in a boom period since Trump came to office.

This policy comes directly from the Federal Reserve which no government has control over in terms of what the central bank's monetary policy actually is. The companies in question have used the saved money to continue investing a in a policy that the central bank started months before the tax cuts came into action.

It's certainly an issue that needs to be addressed but in terms of this story, it's a deflection. It doesn't change that the recent minimum wage decision taken by Amazon is the cause for the shift cuts which have effectively turned into pay cuts. The employees in this article say so themselves.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Basically that companies are going to not prioritize workers over profit, unless you and I are reading things completely differently.
> 
> Where is the "excuse" made. It doesn't even mention higher ups in the article


Yep that's exactly what I was getting at.

What you have to remember is this $15 minimum wage came because of the pressure put on by Congress and the Senate. This is considered one of Bernie Sanders' biggest recent achievements. We're starting to see some of the negative consequences including (once again), the outcome of it picking winners and losers.

Honestly from what I can see, if you want wage growth without the significant drawbacks we're seeing, it needs to come from the bottom up and a decentralized position rather what we have seen here. It's what countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Finland as examples have done and they are among the highest average wage for low earners. Only Australia and to a certain extent Luxembourg are better.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Did you read the post above you? I am guessing no.
> 
> This is what it says:
> 
> Well imagine my shock.
> 
> In all seriousness, *there was always going to be unintended consequences with this wage hike*. There always is when a minimum wage is implemented from the top down. It's going to suck for those being placed in a position to work less hours because of the hourly pay increase and therefore take home less money and struggle more.
> 
> Basically that companies are going to not prioritize workers over profit, unless you and I are reading things completely differently.
> 
> Where is the "excuse" made. It doesn't even mention higher ups in the article


You really should learn to read


*there was always going to be unintended consequences with this wage hike* aka layoffs

Not sure how you can take that any other way .


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103788477949321217
"DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS"


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103368090967044096
https://freebeacon.com/politics/sch...-comments-she-comes-from-a-different-culture/

https://freebeacon.com/politics/cly...rsonal-than-descendants-of-holocaust-victims/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103467933731303424

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102909766442016768
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/aipac-congress-democrats.html

The mask is brazenly lifted, as the entire mainstream left (minus Rahm Emanuel, good on him) falls into line and deflects, dismisses, excuses, and rationalizes anti-Semitism because some socialist media darlings happen to hate the Joos

The double standard is also brazenly displayed because they know they'll get away with it. No Republican or anyone on "the right" would get this kind of cover


----------



## Draykorinee

> Police in the US state of Colorado have launched an internal probe after an officer detained a black man holding a rubbish picker in front of his building, US reports say.


The video is so damning and hilarious, the cop is metaphorically shitting his pants because a black man is in front of him...Land of the free.


----------



## Reaper

The same side that wants to educate us on dog whistles against minorities is completely blind to the use of their own dog whistles against Jews and keep pushing early Nazi era "The Protocols of Elders of Zion" bullshit on the masses. 

Who wudathunk.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Rolo Tomassi said:


> Yep that's exactly what I was getting at.
> 
> What you have to remember is this $15 minimum wage came because of the pressure put on by Congress and the Senate. This is considered one of Bernie Sanders' biggest recent achievements. We're starting to see some of the negative consequences including (once again), the outcome of it picking winners and losers.
> 
> Honestly from what I can see, if you want wage growth without the significant drawbacks we're seeing, it needs to come from the bottom up and a decentralized position rather what we have seen here. It's what countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Finland as examples have done and they are among the highest average wage for low earners. Only Australia and to a certain extent Luxembourg are better.


The strangest thing I see about this conversation is how people ignore the beginning of their sentences by the time they get to the end.

"These companies are greedy, and only want money, so we have to ask them to take money out of their own pocket, and leave it to them to be morally right"

I don't understand the argument that if someone thinks someone else is immoral, that they believe that person is going to change literally overnight.

Employees always are the first line of defense when it comes to budget spending, this isn't a new problem, people just pretend it is, because they either don't know better, or just want to sound smart.



birthday_massacre said:


> You really should learn to read
> 
> 
> *there was always going to be unintended consequences with this wage hike* aka layoffs
> 
> Not sure how you can take that any other way .


Calm down, I am giving you a hard time a bit.

The statement is talking about the affects on employees, it was ambiguous, so i think that is where it went wrong. He clarified it more in his second statement.

The dark reality is one of three entities is going to get the shaft when a budget increase happens: 1. The company, 2. The employees, or 3. The customers

1 and 3 provide a lot more negative feedback than 2 does, so the employees suffer the most consequence unfortunately.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> The same side that wants to educate us on dog whistles against minorities is completely blind to the use of their own dog whistles against Jews and keep pushing early Nazi era "The Protocols of Elders of Zion" bullshit on the masses.
> 
> Who wudathunk.


It isn't the first time these "people" have thrown minorities under the bus for their own agenda. Its about winning and they'll wear hypocrisy like a badge of honor so long as it mean victory


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> It isn't the first time these "people" have thrown minorities under the bus for their own agenda. Its about winning and they'll wear hypocrisy like a badge of honor so long as it mean victory


Why should I (even as an ex-muslim) ever forget the hell "bipartisan" "liberals" and "conservatives" unleashed on my part of the world, Americans and their allies post 9/11. 

It's not even that far back into the historical record to go and see how destructive popular bipartisan dislike for a particular nation/group/people can be. It consistently repeats over and over again. 

We're seeing it right now with the hate for "socialists" and the surge in American popularity for yet another intervention in Venezuela.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Reaper said:


> Why should I (even as an ex-muslim) ever forget the hell "bipartisan" "liberals" and "conservatives" unleashed on my part of the world, Americans and their allies post 9/11.
> 
> It's not even that far back into the historical record to go and see how destructive popular bipartisan dislike for a particular nation/group/people can be. It consistently repeats over and over again.
> 
> We're seeing it right now with the hate for "socialists" and the surge in American popularity for *yet another intervention in Venezuel*a.


If Iraq has taught us anything, I'm assuming we'll get a mission accomplished banner two years after the fact and then 15 more years of further destabilizing an already destabilized country.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> If Iraq has taught us anything, I'm assuming we'll get a mission accomplished banner two years after the fact and then 15 more years of further destabilizing an already destabilized country.


America's interventionism has negatively impacted probably 95% of the countries they've interfered with. 

OH and at this point in time, the negative consequences of interfering in other nations is being felt at home way more than ever before. You have soldiers now fighting in Iraq / Afghanistan that were born after 9/11. 

The _only _people benefiting are those who _directly _benefit from foreign intervention and it's really a very small number of people for a very small amount of money (compared to the entire global economy). 

But that's what happens when Americans vote 1000's of rich people (uh oh, I think I just triggered a bunch of people on here by using the word "rich") into power election after election after election :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> The same side that wants to educate us on dog whistles against minorities is completely blind to the use of their own dog whistles against Jews and keep pushing early Nazi era "The Protocols of Elders of Zion" bullshit on the masses.
> 
> Who wudathunk.


I did.

I pointed this shit out a few years ago when I first started posting here. Did you notice that the people who constantly bring up dog whistling aren't using the term much anymore and avoid talking about it? What a surprise!

What a shock that Identity Politics turns hateful, who woulda thought?

What a shock that brown politicians are as hateful and racist as the white ones they replaced. I thought racism and hate would end! It's almost as if.. The person's character has more to do with their actions and beliefs than skin color and Religion. LOL Nah! 8*D


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting*
> 
> House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections, turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.
> 
> The vote marks a stunning reversal from just six months ago, when the chamber — then under GOP control — voted to decry illegal immigrant voting.
> 
> “We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,” Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues as he led opposition to the GOP measure.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/

:lol But the Democrats don't cheat! They just make cheating legal and problem solved! I wonder if they'd feel this way if illegals would vote Republican....


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1104503216111321089
Worst Trump tweet of all time. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1104521281926508548
Fuck it, I'm in the Yang Gang. America is over anyway, might as well go with one of the two Democrats who doesn't appear to hate white people.


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> Fuck it, I'm in the Yang Gang. America is over anyway, might as well go with one of the two Democrats who doesn't appear to hate white people.


Yep. Stock up on those canned good and shot guns


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> *House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting*
> 
> House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections, turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.
> 
> The vote marks a stunning reversal from just six months ago, when the chamber — then under GOP control — voted to decry illegal immigrant voting.
> 
> “We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,” Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues as he led opposition to the GOP measure.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> But the Democrats don't cheat! They just make cheating legal and problem solved! I wonder if they'd feel this way if illegals would vote Republican....
Click to expand...

They do and have cheated. But this isn't cheating.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CamillePunk said:


> Fuck it, I'm in the Yang Gang. America is over anyway, might as well go with one of the two Democrats who doesn't appear to hate white people.


i'd rather a virtue signaling anti-white sjw democrat than someone that supports universal basic income.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Draykorinee said:


> They do and have cheated. But this isn't cheating.


You're right, when you change laws to allow you to cheat, it ceases to be illegal and therefore not cheating anymore. This will open up a big can of worms in the future.


----------



## virus21

> New York City could be one recession away from bankruptcy, financial analysts are warning.
> 
> Experts say that the city’s high tax burden, its net out-migration, and skyrocketing public spending could result in New York’s first bankruptcy in more than 40 years.
> 
> ‘The city is running a deficit and could be in a real difficult spot if we had a recession, or a further flight of individuals because of tax reform,’ economist Milton Ezrati told the New York Post.
> 
> ‘New York is already in a difficult financial spot, but it would be in an impossible situation if we had any kind of setback.’
> 
> The last time New York was close to bankruptcy was in 1975, when then-President Gerald Ford famously refused to bail out the city from its crippling debt.
> New York City could go bankrupt if a recession hit, financial analysts are warning
> +3
> 
> New York City could go bankrupt if a recession hit, financial analysts are warning
> Mayor Bill de Blasio’s new budget includes an additional $3billion in spending - on top of the current $89.2billion
> +3
> 
> Mayor Bill de Blasio’s new budget includes an additional $3billion in spending - on top of the current $89.2billion
> 
> Last October, the city said that its long-term liabilities, including bonded debt, pensions, and other retirement benefits for its public sector workers, reached a record $257.3billion, an increase of $4.7billion since fiscal year 2017.
> 
> The average liability per New York City household has increased by more than $1,500 to $82,577, according to the Citizens Budget Commission.
> 
> Mayor Bill de Blasio’s new budget includes an additional $3billion in spending - on top of the current $89.2billion.
> RELATED ARTICLES
> 
> Previous
> 1
> Next
> 
> Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez uses her SXSW talk to label FDR's...
> Severe turbulence injures at least 32 passengers on a...
> 
> Share this article
> Share
> 
> Analysts say de Blasio’s preliminary fiscal 2020 budget includes $750million in savings, but that won’t be enough if a recession comes - as many predict.
> 
> The mayor has also increased spending since taking office. The pace of his spending increase is triple the rate of inflation, according to the Post.
> 
> The state has also added more than 33,000 public sector workers in the last five years, thus increasing its long-term liabilities.
> The last time New York was close to bankruptcy was in 1975, when then-President Gerald Ford famously refused to bail out the city from its crippling debt
> +3
> 
> The last time New York was close to bankruptcy was in 1975, when then-President Gerald Ford famously refused to bail out the city from its crippling debt
> 
> To make matters worse, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s preliminary budget calls for a $600million in cuts to spending on the city.
> 
> Economic worries are also on the mind of the powers that be in Albany.
> 
> Cuomo said on Monday that the state is running a $2.3billion deficit.
> 
> Cuomo said the new tax law passed by the Republican-led Congress in 2017, which limits the ability to deduct state and local taxes from federal income taxes, contributed to the deficit, according to WAMC.
> 
> The governor also said that the dip in the stock market in December led to lower than anticipated tax payments.
> 
> Cuomo says he is opposed to plans by progressive to impose even higher taxes on wealthy New Yorkers in order to subsidize ambitious programs like single payer health care.
> 
> The governor says that New York already has the second highest taxes on millionaires in the country.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6791327/New-York-City-BANKRUPT-recession-hits-experts-warn.html
Part of me wants to laugh.


----------



## Miss Sally

Stinger Fan said:


> You're right, when you change laws to allow you to cheat, it ceases to be illegal and therefore not cheating anymore. This will open up a big can of worms in the future.


It's not illegal if you change the rules! LOLZ

As if this justifies it. The fuck is the point of being a US Citizen now? Now there will be no need for border security, just everyone pack as many illegals as you can.

This won't fuck with anything.

Well at least for Democrats they won't need the black vote anymore. :laugh:

Better question, when do we allow the dead to vote? How about allowing other countries to vote on issues too, that sounds pretty good. Maybe people can vote on the issues from around the world using the Political equal of a straw vote. I like it!


----------



## yeahbaby!

Is this not a bit of a storm in a teacup?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/



> House Democrats voted Friday to* defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections,* turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.


That's totally wishy washy, defend localities what does that entail? 

And:



> *A 1996 federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, but there is no prohibition on localities, and indeed a number of jurisdictions allow it, to some extent.*
> 
> Famously liberal Takoma Park, a small jurisdiction in Maryland, has for several decades allowed noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in local elections.
> 
> *Experts say as many as 40 states or territories allowed noncitizen voting dating back to the nation’s founding.*
> 
> *San Francisco in July began allowing noncitizens to vote in school board elections — though they must be parents or legal guardians of students.*


So it's not going to be illegals deciding the next POTUS ffs; it's also something that has been going on a long time; and in evil liberal San Fran it's gone as far as voting in school board elections. OH NO!


----------



## Draykorinee

yeahbaby! said:


> Is this not a bit of a storm in a teacup?
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House Democrats voted Friday to* defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections,* turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.
> 
> 
> 
> That's totally wishy washy, defend localities what does that entail?
> 
> And:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A 1996 federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, but there is no prohibition on localities, and indeed a number of jurisdictions allow it, to some extent.*
> 
> Famously liberal Takoma Park, a small jurisdiction in Maryland, has for several decades allowed noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in local elections.
> 
> *Experts say as many as 40 states or territories allowed noncitizen voting dating back to the nation’s founding.*
> 
> *San Francisco in July began allowing noncitizens to vote in school board elections — though they must be parents or legal guardians of students.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's not going to be illegals deciding the next POTUS ffs; it's also something that has been going on a long time; and in evil liberal San Fran it's gone as far as voting in school board elections. OH NO!
Click to expand...

Ahhh, that bit wasn't shared by stinger, now it makes sense. The way he and Sally framed it this was going to allow immigrants to vote in the presidential elections. Even my liberal sensibilities we're thinking it was a shitty move.

I see now that's just a narrative they wanted to drive with, but it's bullshit. I really hate selective editing.


----------



## virus21

Dumbass


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

one day all progressives inevitably learn that:

a) you can never be progressive _enough_

b) you can never be _too_ progressive.


it's a lose/lose game. the goal posts are always moving.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Debra Messing is apologizing to transwomen for posting vagina cupcakes on her IG on International Women's Day.

:lol

Link contains NSFW baked goods.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Buwjj0BnTNk/



> *therealdebramessing*
> 
> Happy International Women’s Day! Powerful, beautiful, and sweet. �� (image by @therealaliwentworth ).
> 
> (*��ADDED��*: I want to apologize to my trans sisters. This photo was supposed to be light, & sassy. The first thing I thought when I saw this photo was “wow how wonderful. Each one is unique in color and shape and size. The porn industry has perpetuated this myth of what a “beautiful” vagina looks like and as a result there are women who feel shame or insecure about the shape of the vulva. I loved that this picture said “every single one is beautiful and unique and that’s powerful.” I did not, however, think “but there are innumerable beautiful, unique and powerful women who don’t have a vagina. And I SHOULD have. And for that I am so so sorry. Thank you for righting my wrong.


----------



## Miss Sally

2 Ton 21 said:


> Debra Messing is apologizing to transwomen for posting vagina cupcakes on her IG on International Women's Day.
> 
> :lol
> 
> Link contains NSFW baked goods.
> 
> https://www.instagram.com/p/Buwjj0BnTNk/













SOON.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> SOON.


Funny that men who became women are now the real women. Male Privilege perhaps????


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> Debra Messing is apologizing to transwomen for posting vagina cupcakes on her IG on International Women's Day.
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Link contains NSFW baked goods.
> 
> https://www.instagram.com/p/Buwjj0BnTNk/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *therealdebramessing*
> 
> Happy International Women’s Day! Powerful, beautiful, and sweet. �� (image by @therealaliwentworth ).
> 
> (*��ADDED��*: I want to apologize to my trans sisters. This photo was supposed to be light, & sassy. The first thing I thought when I saw this photo was “wow how wonderful. Each one is unique in color and shape and size. The porn industry has perpetuated this myth of what a “beautiful” vagina looks like and as a result there are women who feel shame or insecure about the shape of the vulva. I loved that this picture said “every single one is beautiful and unique and that’s powerful.” I did not, however, think “but there are innumerable beautiful, unique and powerful women who don’t have a vagina. And I SHOULD have. And for that I am so so sorry. Thank you for righting my wrong.
Click to expand...

I just don't know what to say. The world is just madness.


----------



## deepelemblues

"Mosoginy" :ha

Also has this dumb scrunt Debra Messing ever watched any pr0n, there is not some stereotypical pussy appearance type that dominates. Every pussy looks different and they're all great :thumbsup


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> one day all progressives inevitably learn that:
> 
> a) you can never be progressive _enough_
> 
> b) you can never be _too_ progressive.
> 
> 
> it's a lose/lose game. the goal posts are always moving.


What makes you say that? Would you turn that around on conservatives as well?


----------



## DOPA

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/hea...Wbc5gf9TC6favCSF9QQ-YVMYnDd_1HPBwUYSKMRDRSfmU



> Mayor Sadiq Khan today said he was “shocked” that a row over funding was denying more Londoners access to an HIV “wonder drug”.
> 
> Mr Khan intervened in a battle between London councils and the Government over the estimated £3 million cost of extending a trial providing free PrEP, a daily pre-exposure prophylaxis pill that protects against the Aids virus.
> 
> NHS England last month announced that it was doubling the number of places on the PrEP Impact trial from 13,000 to 26,000 after it was quickly oversubscribed due to its success.
> 
> PrEP prevents HIV transmission in about 99 per cent of cases.
> 
> People who receive PrEP have to undergo three monthly tests for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases but councils say their public health budgets are stretched and have pleaded for more cash.
> 
> Mr Khan today called on the Government to intervene to ensure PrEP is available “to all who need it”.
> 
> Mr Khan said: “I’m shocked that the Government is failing to provide local authorities in London with the funding they need to provide PrEP to all those who could benefit.”
> 
> Ray Puddifoot, London Councils’ executive member for health, said: “We are committed to making the further expansion of the trial a success, but the responsible thing to do is to ensure it... does not destabilise other critical sexual health services.”
> 
> The Department of Health and Social Care said the additional places now being rolled out “will play an important role in our prevention efforts”.


Perhaps if Sadiq Khan didn't waste millions of pounds on an online hub to tackle so called hate speech and Islamophobia or spend that money on banning bikini ads and fast food ads he'd have the money to give access to HIV patients with these drug trials.

He can't keep passing the blame on what is important to Londoners when his spending priorities have always be completely out of wack.


----------



## Draykorinee

Rolo Tomassi said:


> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/hea...Wbc5gf9TC6favCSF9QQ-YVMYnDd_1HPBwUYSKMRDRSfmU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mayor Sadiq Khan today said he was “shocked” that a row over funding was denying more Londoners access to an HIV “wonder drug”.
> 
> Mr Khan intervened in a battle between London councils and the Government over the estimated £3 million cost of extending a trial providing free PrEP, a daily pre-exposure prophylaxis pill that protects against the Aids virus.
> 
> NHS England last month announced that it was doubling the number of places on the PrEP Impact trial from 13,000 to 26,000 after it was quickly oversubscribed due to its success.
> 
> PrEP prevents HIV transmission in about 99 per cent of cases.
> 
> People who receive PrEP have to undergo three monthly tests for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases but councils say their public health budgets are stretched and have pleaded for more cash.
> 
> Mr Khan today called on the Government to intervene to ensure PrEP is available “to all who need it”.
> 
> Mr Khan said: “I’m shocked that the Government is failing to provide local authorities in London with the funding they need to provide PrEP to all those who could benefit.”
> 
> Ray Puddifoot, London Councils’ executive member for health, said: “We are committed to making the further expansion of the trial a success, but the responsible thing to do is to ensure it... does not destabilise other critical sexual health services.”
> 
> The Department of Health and Social Care said the additional places now being rolled out “will play an important role in our prevention efforts”.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if Sadiq Khan didn't waste millions of pounds on an online hub to tackle so called hate speech and Islamophobia or spend that money on banning bikini ads and fast food ads he'd have the money to give access to HIV patients with these drug trials.
> 
> He can't keep passing the blame on what is important to Londoners when his spending priorities have always be completely out of wack.
Click to expand...

Not sure Khan has any control over NHS spending nor can he just transfer money around how he feels.
He did devolve a lot of power to himself and London so he probably had some ability to acquire funds through sale from the NHS portfolio but generally speaking this is out of his hands.


----------



## Strike Force

The backlash against all this SJW nonsense is coming, and I don't think the liberals have a clue. And I'm a liberal (ish) myself.


----------



## Miss Sally

Rolo Tomassi said:


> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/hea...Wbc5gf9TC6favCSF9QQ-YVMYnDd_1HPBwUYSKMRDRSfmU
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if Sadiq Khan didn't waste millions of pounds on an online hub to tackle so called hate speech and Islamophobia or spend that money on banning bikini ads and fast food ads he'd have the money to give access to HIV patients with these drug trials.
> 
> He can't keep passing the blame on what is important to Londoners when his spending priorities have always be completely out of wack.


Just do what all good leaders do, print more money! Also it's not his fault, it's never the guy in charge who's at fault. :serious:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> What makes you say that? Would you turn that around on conservatives as well?


progressives are always on a never-ending crusade to right wrongs and fight for marginalized groups. there NEEDS to be a boogeyman just like there NEEDS to be a victim class otherwise they have no cause.

and if you aren't in total agreement with them, you are labelled an enemy.


----------



## ShiningStar

Strike Force said:


> The backlash against all this SJW nonsense is coming, and I don't think the liberals have a clue. And I'm a liberal (ish) myself.


To be honest most of the SJW craziness is by a small insular bubble of academics or twitter warrior's and not Dem's, progressives or liberals ,same way most Conservatives/Libertarian's aren't a bunch of beta snowflakes triggered by Brie Larson. Most of these culture war battle's about shit from fighting political factions are contained to within the online world.


----------



## CamillePunk

Beto's in the race. Not sure he'll be able to overtake Biden or Harris to be the corporate candidate opposite Bernie. But the more the merrier! I only regret that Hillary won't be jumping back into the fray. :sad: Hoping she changes her mind! :mark: Your country needs you, Madam President!


----------



## TakerFreak

ShiningStar said:


> To be honest most of the SJW craziness is by a small insular bubble of academics or twitter warrior's and not Dem's, progressives or liberals ,same way most* Conservatives/Libertarian's aren't a bunch of beta snowflakes triggered by Brie Larson.* Most of these culture war battle's about shit from fighting political factions are contained to within the online world.



I am a Liberal Canadian and I couldn't stand her or so called attitude. The SJW Craziness seems to be a little bigger than that. I've noticed it affecting Video games, Comics, News Media, Ads and movies.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Beto's in the race. Not sure he'll be able to overtake Biden or Harris to be the corporate candidate opposite Bernie. But the more the merrier! I only regret that Hillary won't be jumping back into the fray. :sad: Hoping she changes her mind! :mark: Your country needs you, Madam President!


I was going to post about Beta jumping into the fray.. So Black Hillary isn't working so bring in Establishment Bernie. :laugh:

Oh. My. God Could these candidates be more obvious? 2020 is going to be amazing!

Biden is still polling above everyone else isn't he? That's crazy!


----------



## jroc72191

deepelemblues said:


> Just like Jill Stein
> 
> NO REFUNDS
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/05/ocasio-cortez-omar-israel-1203506
> 
> Oh what a surprise a socialist is swooping in to defend an anti-Semite :eyeroll
> 
> Bug-Eyes needs all the allies she can get tho after the little McCarthyist contretemps about a "list" being made by her staff of Democrats who aren't socialist enough really pissed off most of the Democrat House caucus




its funny how the socialists are doing the "very good people on both sides" shit that they fucking LAMBASTED trump about.



Draykorinee said:


> It's so hard to know who is actually antisemitic nowadays seeing as everyone's getting labeled as one.


funny i think the same thing about the "racists" in this country!


----------



## deepelemblues

Strike Force said:


> The backlash against all this SJW nonsense is coming, and I don't think the liberals have a clue. And I'm a liberal (ish) myself.


There already was, the election of 2016 was close enough that the backlash to punitive identity politics was likely the decisive factor in :trump winning PA, WI and MI


----------



## DaRealNugget

keep them coming. the more establishment dems join the race, the more they split the centrist vote. progressives are pretty much united behind sanders at this point. 

biden is the only one ahead, and that's only because of name recognition. once he gets on a debate stage and calls trump a good guy, billionaires good people, insults millennials, has his god awful record examined, and presents an exciting new vision of the status quo for the country, he'll be done for.


----------



## Strike Force

deepelemblues said:


> There already was, the election of 2016 was close enough that the backlash to punitive identity politics was likely the decisive factor in :trump winning PA, WI and MI


Oh, I'm talking about a much deeper sociopolitical backlash than the simple election of Trump.



DaRealNugget said:


> biden is the only one ahead, and that's only because of name recognition. once he gets on a debate stage and calls trump a good guy, billionaires good people, insults millennials, has his god awful record examined, and presents an exciting new vision of the status quo for the country, he'll be done for.


Unfortunately, it seems as though you are not familiar with Biden or politics writ large. Biden won't call Trump a "good guy," billionaires "good people," or insult millennials. He doesn't have a "god awful record", either, as you so eloquently put it. Also, I'm not sure what the problem is with "presenting an exciting new vision of the status quo." Basically, your post has no merit whatsoever, which is strange, since there are actually valid criticisms of Biden you could put forth. You simply managed to miss all of them and make a bunch of shit up. Read more, champ.


----------



## Draykorinee

jroc72191 said:


> funny i think the same thing about the "racists" in this country!


This is true also, every person who wants medicare for all is a communist, everyone who wears a MAGA hat is a racist, everyone who doesn't want to make a cake for gay people are homophobes etc etc.



Strike Force said:


> Oh, I'm talking about a much deeper sociopolitical backlash than the simple election of Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems as though you are not familiar with Biden or politics writ large. Biden won't call Trump a "good guy," billionaires "good people," or insult millennials. He doesn't have a "god awful record", either, as you so eloquently put it. Also, I'm not sure what the problem is with "presenting an exciting new vision of the status quo." Basically, your post has no merit whatsoever, which is strange, since there are actually valid criticisms of Biden you could put forth. You simply managed to miss all of them and make a bunch of shit up. Read more, champ.


Biden said Pence was a decent guy, had a bash at Millenials and has a terrible record at running for President. He also said very clearly that Billionaires aren't the bad guys, whilst that isn't saying they're the good guys it could be taken that way.

Biden is a terrible candidate , a gaff prone establishment guy who pushed for the mass incarcerations that America faces with his pathetic Violent criminal act.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Strike Force said:


> Unfortunately, it seems as though you are not familiar with Biden or politics writ large. Biden won't call Trump a "good guy," billionaires "good people," or insult millennials.


replace trump with pence, and he has already done all three. 



> He doesn't have a "god awful record", either, as you so eloquently put it.


hmmm, let's see...

- voted for the iraq war
- was the author of the 1994 crime bill that led to the rise of mass incarcerations for african americans
- voted for and laid the groundwork for the patriot act
- voted to repeal Glass-Steagall
- proponent of the War on Drugs
- likely opposes net neutrality
- accepts corporate donations
- opposed, and still opposes, anti-segregated busing
- “I do not buy the concept, popular in the ’60s, which said, ‘We have suppressed the black man for 300 years and the white man is now far ahead in the race for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a head start, or even hold the white man back, to even the race.’ I don’t buy that.” ... "The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with. What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist! Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?”
- opposes marijuana legalization “There’s a difference between sending someone to jail for a few ounces and legalizing it. The punishment should fit the crime. But I think legalization is a mistake. I still believe it’s a gateway drug. I’ve spent a lot of my life as chairman of the Judiciary Committee dealing with this. I think it would be a mistake to legalize."
- As Senate Judiciary chairman, he didn't allow testimony of two witnesses who would have corroborated Anita Hill's claims of sexual harassment. But had no problem whatsover allowing witnesses to challenge Hill's credibility
- etc. etc. etc. 



> Also, I'm not sure what the problem is with "presenting an exciting new vision of the status quo." Basically, your post has no merit whatsoever, which is strange, since there are actually valid criticisms of Biden you could put forth. You simply managed to miss all of them and make a bunch of shit up. Read more, champ.


yea man, there's no better way to get people excited to get out and vote against donald trump than to promise incremental change at best. the people don't want healthcare or education or labor rights or a clean environment. what they want is what we had pre-donald trump. war and bank bailouts and corporate subsidies and war and politicians bought out by wall street and empty promises and war. that's why they elected hillary... oh wait.


----------



## Reaper

DaRealNugget said:


> keep them coming. the more establishment dems join the race, the more they split the centrist vote. progressives are pretty much united behind sanders at this point.
> 
> biden is the only one ahead, and that's only because of name recognition. once he gets on a debate stage and calls trump a good guy, billionaires good people, insults millennials, has his god awful record examined, and presents an exciting new vision of the status quo for the country, he'll be done for.


Biden is "ahead" because they're still relying largely on the archaic method of calling people for their reactions. 

Also, since they announced that he is likely announcing the distance between him and Bernie has shrunk from 10 points to 2-3 points. 

This indicates something to me but I'd rather not say what right now.



deepelemblues said:


> There already was, the election of 2016 was close enough that the backlash to punitive identity politics was likely the decisive factor in :trump winning PA, WI and MI


As usualy you post nonsense. The reason why he won PA, WI and MI was because he promised them their archaic model of the factory job / manufacturing job back. 

Something that is undelivered and therefore likely to play a huge factor in 2020 as that group doesn't give two shits about the elitest SJW non-sense whatsoever. They're a largely color-blind voter that votes based on job creation and not much as well. 

It was college aged white boys that were the anti-SJW Trump supporters and that was nation-wide - and a small increase of 5% overall, not just restricted to the Rust Belt. 

Stop trying to re-write history. It isn't going to work.


----------



## Miss Sally

I'm not a Bernie in the least but yeah guys like Beto are getting called for simply to try and siphon votes away. 

They're going to try and fuck Bernie big time.

I'm expecting some twists and turns, along with a steel chair to Bernie by some well liked Dems.


----------



## Stinger Fan

DaRealNugget said:


> keep them coming. the more establishment dems join the race, the more they split the centrist vote. progressives are pretty much united behind sanders at this point.
> 
> biden is the only one ahead, and that's only because of name recognition. once he gets on a debate stage and calls trump a good guy, billionaires good people, insults millennials, has his god awful record examined, and presents an exciting new vision of the status quo for the country, he'll be done for.


You're right, Biden should be more like Bernie where ,he gets the mic taken away from him and look extremely weak, tell majority of the country they cannot experience any sort of struggle or what its like to be poor , write an essay suggesting women want to be raped, say he's against the rich despite being the 1% or that people need to stop hoarding wealth despite owning 3 homes himself...did I get everything? :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> I'm not a Bernie in the least but yeah guys like Beto are getting called for simply to try and siphon votes away.
> 
> They're going to try and fuck Bernie big time.
> 
> I'm expecting some twists and turns, along with a steel chair to Bernie by some well liked Dems.


Someone should ask Bernie at one of the debates if he intends to campaign for the corporate Democrat who the DNC helps to defeat him the way he did with Hillary like a hopelessly pathetic cuck. :heston


----------



## deepelemblues

Nah someone should ask Bernie what the monthly quota for yelling at clouds will be


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Bernie in the least but yeah guys like Beto are getting called for simply to try and siphon votes away.
> 
> They're going to try and fuck Bernie big time.
> 
> I'm expecting some twists and turns, along with a steel chair to Bernie by some well liked Dems.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should ask Bernie at one of the debates if he intends to campaign for the corporate Democrat who the DNC helps to defeat him the way he did with Hillary like a hopelessly pathetic cuck. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/m2XjBg7.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Heston" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

That's what all politicians do, look at Trump sucking up to Ted Cruz after smashing the shit out of him during the nominations. It's not ideal but that's what bipartisan politics breeds.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> You're right, Biden should be more like Bernie where *,he gets the mic taken away from him and look extremely weak*, tell majority of the country they cannot experience any sort of struggle or what its like to be poor , write an essay suggesting women want to be raped, say he's against the rich despite being the 1% or that people need to stop hoarding wealth despite owning 3 homes himself...did I get everything? :lol


Jesus it still boggles the mind this is still brought up against the guy, still at this point, as some sort of slander. 

'Making him look weak for getting.... OH NO!!!.... a microphone taken away!!!!'

It's quite pathetic to still be bringing it up to be honest.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus it still boggles the mind this is still brought up against the guy, still at this point, as some sort of slander.
> 
> 'Making him look weak for getting.... OH NO!!!.... a microphone taken away!!!!'
> 
> It's quite pathetic to still be bringing it up to be honest.


Someone wanting to be a leader getting shown up in front of the crowd by randos running up on him and taking control of the situation, making him look ineffectual, that is something that doesn't lend itself to being forgotten no matter what epithet you find for it not being forgotten

It's embarrassing for him, you don't like him being embarrassed so you gotta try to make bringing it up something that is itself embarrassing, got it :thumbsup

BernieOld should be asked a follow-up question re: cloud-yelling, if I am trying to fill my cloud-yelling quota under the Five-Year Plan and my microphone gets taken away by someone above me in the hierarchy, will I be punished if that prevents me from filling my cloud-yelling quota? Considering the history of socialism, probably :draper2


----------



## Stinger Fan

yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus it still boggles the mind this is still brought up against the guy, still at this point, as some sort of slander.
> 
> 'Making him look weak for getting.... OH NO!!!.... a microphone taken away!!!!'
> 
> It's quite pathetic to still be bringing it up to be honest.


What would have made him look better was if he actually interviewed them asking them what policies they supported etc etc and take charge of the situation. Instead, he lost complete control over something he had control of. He allowed himself to be bullied and he gave up. Much in the same way he gave up when the whole DNC primary collusion thing happened, he sat there and took it, he didn't fight at all. That's not the sign of a strong leader.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> That's what all politicians do, look at Trump sucking up to Ted Cruz after smashing the shit out of him during the nominations. It's not ideal but that's what bipartisan politics breeds.


Are you serious right now? :heston Not even remotely the same thing.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> What would have made him look better was if he actually interviewed them asking them what policies they supported etc etc and take charge of the situation. Instead, he lost complete control over something he had control of. He allowed himself to be bullied and he gave up. Much in the same way he gave up when the whole DNC primary collusion thing happened, he sat there and took it, he didn't fight at all. That's not the sign of a strong leader.


Who the fuck cares??? It wasn't backing down from a talk with a foreign leader or something FFS. It was a single instance on a campaign with worked up activists. What a terrible thing to give people a platform to talk when they're all worked up.

If a single instance like that shows he's not a strong leader apparently then we're all fucked. "Bullied" how ridiculous. The lengths some people will go.

The same people who complain endlessly that Trump gets every gaff jumped on to make him look foolish are happy to trot this dead horse out time and time again.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Who the fuck cares??? It wasn't backing down from a talk with a foreign leader or something FFS. It was a single instance on a campaign with worked up activists. What a terrible thing to give people a platform to talk when they're all worked up.
> 
> If a single instance like that shows he's not a strong leader apparently then we're all fucked. "Bullied" how ridiculous. The lengths some people will go.
> 
> The same people who complain endlessly that Trump gets every gaff jumped on to make him look foolish are happy to trot this dead horse out time and time again.


What makes you think he wouldn't cave into Politicians if he cannot handle any randoms? Think about this for a second and look at it objectively. He backed down to these activists nobody wanted to hear from, he bent the knee to Hillary.. so technically he already bowed before another Politician.

If this were an instance of a Police Officer backing down to someone yelling at him and the cowering before a fellow officer who he knows is corrupt, what makes you think that person would be a great cop?:laugh:


----------



## deepelemblues

Politics isn't fair or about being fair, it's about winning so you have the chance to do what you think should be done. More shocking revelations at 11


----------



## DaRealNugget

Stinger Fan said:


> You're right, Biden should be more like Bernie where ,he gets the mic taken away from him and look extremely weak, tell majority of the country they cannot experience any sort of struggle or what its like to be poor , write an essay suggesting women want to be raped, say he's against the rich despite being the 1% or that people need to stop hoarding wealth despite owning 3 homes himself...did I get everything? :lol


:lmao :lmao :lmao

if a bunch of nothingburgers is the best neolibs/conservatives got, then bernie's got this in the bag.



Miss Sally said:


> What makes you think he wouldn't cave into Politicians if he cannot handle any randoms? Think about this for a second and look at it objectively. He backed down to these activists nobody wanted to hear from, he bent the knee to Hillary.. so technically he already bowed before another Politician.


you're right. he should've shushed the BLM protesters. i'm sure the african american community would have loved that. instead he listened to them, and a few days later released the most comprehensive racial justice platform in american history.

and he also should have said fuck the system and ran as independent to massage his ego, virtually guaranteeing a trump victory in 2016, instead of backing hillary. the only candidate whom he had the chance of dragging further to the left.

oh wait, no he shouldn't have. because that would have been fucking stupid.


----------



## deepelemblues

Just like in 2016

Feel the Bern* 

*NO REFUNDS


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> What makes you think he wouldn't cave into Politicians if he cannot handle any randoms? Think about this for a second and look at it objectively. He backed down to these activists nobody wanted to hear from, he bent the knee to Hillary.. so technically he already bowed before another Politician.
> 
> If this were an instance of a Police Officer backing down to someone yelling at him and the cowering before a fellow officer who he knows is corrupt, what makes you think that person would be a great cop?:laugh:


Because dealing with random people in the middle of a public rally and dealing with other pollies are so two completely different things that it bears no more thought to that comparison.

All parties' losing nominees 'bend the knee' to the winner of the nomination if that's how you want to put it. Non factor.

I assume you're joking about the fellow police officer thing. Poor attempt at humor!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all politicians do, look at Trump sucking up to Ted Cruz after smashing the shit out of him during the nominations. It's not ideal but that's what bipartisan politics breeds.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious right now? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/m2XjBg7.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Heston" class="inlineimg" /> Not even remotely the same thing.
Click to expand...

Ted Cruz accepted the support of someone who tore him and his wife to shreds for bipartisan reasons. Bernie supported Hillary after being cheated for bipartisan reasons.

You'll have to explain why they're not even remotely similar and not just say it, because you're wrong.

It's not about being a cuck, it's about getting the people in power who will best align with your political position even if it means working with someone you don't want to. The idea of being a cuck is patently bullshit.


----------



## Miss Sally

DaRealNugget said:


> you're right. he should've shushed the BLM protesters. i'm sure the african american community would have loved that. instead he listened to them, and a few days later released the most comprehensive racial justice platform in american history.
> 
> *and he also should have said fuck the system and ran as independent to massage his ego, virtually guaranteeing a trump victory in 2016, instead of backing hillary. the only candidate whom he had the chance of dragging further to the left.*
> 
> oh wait, no he shouldn't have. because that would have been fucking stupid.


Nobody said anything about shushing them, the issue came when they rambled for sometime and he stood there. Had he been smart about it he could have let them speak for a few moments and then addressed them and the crowd. He really didn't do that, so therefore he looked silly. 

The bold part is why we have a near one party system. In the end it was meaningless, Hillary lost. 



yeahbaby! said:


> Because dealing with random people in the middle of a public rally and dealing with other pollies are so two completely different things that it bears no more thought to that comparison.
> 
> All parties' losing nominees 'bend the knee' to the winner of the nomination if that's how you want to put it. Non factor.
> 
> I assume you're joking about the fellow police officer thing. Poor attempt at humor!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!


Dealing with random events and people in any situation is a great showing for a leader. We have had surprise enactments at work with Earthquake, Active shooters, mass trauma etc. The "action scenarios" won't be anything like the real thing yet it's still important because it's a decent way to find out how people will react. In Bernie's case it would have barring on how he could deal with hostile Politicians and Leaders. 

Bending the knee is a factor when you're anti-establishment, get screwed by the establishment and then act as if it's okay. Bernie was screwed over by the Democrats and Hillary, yet he chose to bend the knee to her. I'd say it's a big factor when he's President if he'll keep to his word or simply fold to the Establishment.

If you switched Trump with Bernie in the exact same scenario I'm sure the views of the reactions would be exactly the same, I'm sure. :x

In reality I think Bernie does actually care about the American people but he's worthless if he won't fight, if he cannot handle people derailing him. He'd just then be another old white guy in a long list of old white guys we keep voting in who say they'll change things. :shrug


----------



## Stinger Fan

DaRealNugget said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> if a bunch of nothingburgers is the best neolibs/conservatives got, then bernie's got this in the bag.


But wait, there's more :lol . Biden should say he's against racism but Govern in Vermont where over 95% of the population is white and doesn't have to deal with minorities, or say he's in favor of raising the minimum wage but keep it at $10 an hour like in Vermont or.... not pay the interns who work for him :lol

How can Bernie Sanders be Captain America when he can be defeated by a calculator? :lol


----------



## DaRealNugget

Stinger Fan said:


> But wait, there's more :lol . Biden should say he's against racism but Govern in Vermont where over 95% of the population is white and doesn't have to deal with minorities, or say he's in favor of raising the minimum wage but keep it at $10 an hour like in Vermont or.... not pay the interns who work for him :lol
> 
> How can Bernie Sanders be Captain America when he can be defeated by a calculator? :lol


:mj4

what type of logic is this shit? :lmao

TIL people can't be against racism if they live in a white state. TIL Bernie Sanders is the governor of Vermont and is in control of what the state minimum wage is. TIL Bernie doesn't pay his interns... oh, wait he does. you pulled that out of your ass.

like are you even trying? :lmao :lmao :lmao



Miss Sally said:


> Nobody said anything about shushing them, the issue came when they rambled for sometime and he stood there. Had he been smart about it he could have let them speak for a few moments and then addressed them and the crowd. He really didn't do that, so therefore he looked silly.
> 
> The bold part is why we have a near one party system. In the end it was meaningless, Hillary lost.


The BLM protesters is a non-story. He listened, and adapted his platform to include racial justice. Maybe he could've done things a little differently, but it's nothing important. The only people still bringing this up are people who were never going to support Bernie anyway.

If Bernie had run as an independent, not only would both he and hillary have lost, he would have most certainly killed any chances at running again by dividing the party and would have severely damaged his movement by being known as the guy that gave us trump. He also would have had no leg to stand on, because hillary was the winner of the primaries. Sure the DNC and MSM had their biases, but in the end she won more votes than Bernie in 2016. To risk a Trump presidency by running as independent would have made him out to be a sore loser. This is Bernie Sanders we're talking about. Not Trump. His ego isn't that big.

You're acting like Bernie Sanders hasn't already been standing up for what's right his entire life. Go ahead and forget about the time he got arrested protesting segregation in one of the first civil rights protests, that he himself organized, in the north. Go ahead and forget about the fact that you can go back 40 years and find clips of him trashing foreign intervention and speaking out against income inequality and defending LGBTQ and demanding action on climate change, before these positions were ever popular.

Forget about the last two years, being the ONLY presidential candidate to get anything accomplished under a Trump presidency, by pressuring Disneyland and Amazon to raise their wages to $15 an hour, for the first time in history get the Senate to invoke the war powers act and vote against an unauthorized war, and build a movement in which nearly his entire platform is wanted by the majority of the American people, and in which the democratic party has shifted to the left and most of his opponents have adopted parts of his platform as their own.

I like Gabbard, Yang, Buttigieg, and Warren, and I hope when Bernie wins they'll be given cabinet positions, but if I am to trust someone to actually deliver on the platform their promising, I'm going to go with the guy who's been the most consistent critic of the status quo his entire life.


----------



## Stinger Fan

DaRealNugget said:


> :mj4
> 
> what type of logic is this shit? :lmao
> 
> TIL people can't be against racism if they live in a white state. TIL Bernie Sanders is the governor of Vermont and is in control of what the state minimum wage is. TIL Bernie doesn't pay his interns... oh, wait he does. you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> like are you even trying? :lmao :lmao :lmao


I'm criticizing a guy who believes in one thing, but does another, you know like all politicians :lol. He's a guy who doesn't practice what he preaches but you'll always give him a pass due to his empty platitudes. The fact is, he chose to run in Vermont which is overwhelmingly white. If he actually wanted to help minorities,and have prison reform and other policies he says he supports, he would have chosen a much better location to do that, but instead he chose a very comfortable in his 3 homes and wealthy life where it's easy to say you're against racism when you don't have to deal with minorities so his words ring hollow. He's been in office for decades, yet his state is still under $11 an hour , that's hardly a livable wage that he proudy supports. Hell, I even think it should be a little higher :lol. In my enjoyment of mocking Bernie I had made an error , he does pay his interns.... about $10 an hour :lol. This guy keeps dropping the ball on implemented policies he supports. He doesn't even pay his own interns a livable wage to help pay off those student debts he's so adamant about removing :lol . Btw, I'm not a conservative nor have I ever voted in my life, politicians aren't God's to me like they are to you . So , keep on believing that Bernie is some savior and that he should be believed because of his proven track record and all , maybe one day he'll win the big one :lol

You know, you have a lot more in common with those hardcore Trump supporters than you think :lol


----------



## DaRealNugget

Stinger Fan said:


> I'm criticizing a guy who believes in one thing, but does another, you know like all politicians :lol. He's a guy who doesn't practice what he preaches but you'll always give him a pass due to his empty platitudes. The fact is, he chose to run in Vermont which is overwhelmingly white. If he actually wanted to help minorities,and have prison reform and other policies he says he supports, he would have chosen a much better location to do that, but instead he chose a very comfortable in his 3 homes and wealthy life where it's easy to say you're against racism when you don't have to deal with minorities so his words ring hollow. He's been in office for decades, yet his state is still under $11 an hour , that's hardly a livable wage that he proudy supports. Hell, I even think it should be a little higher :lol. In my enjoyment of mocking Bernie I had made an error , he does pay his interns.... about $10 an hour :lol. This guy keeps dropping the ball on implemented policies he supports. He doesn't even pay his own interns a livable wage to help pay off those student debts he's so adamant about removing :lol . Btw, I'm not a conservative nor have I ever voted in my life, politicians aren't God's to me like they are to you . So , keep on believing that Bernie is some savior and that he should be believed because of his proven track record and all , maybe one day he'll win the big one :lol
> 
> You know, you have a lot more in common with those hardcore Trump supporters than you think :lol


Again, where are you getting your logic from? :lol

Your criticism of running in Vermont is fucking stupid. Doesn't even merit a proper response.

Having 3 homes is a stupid fucking criticism as well. He's paid $170,000 a year in congress, and has been in congress since the 90's. Being smart with your money isn't hypocritical. Especially since one of those homes is in Vermont, where he has to live to run for office. One is in DC, where he works. And one was a house his wife inherited. If he gained his wealth through worker exploitation, you'd have a point. But he didn't. And you don't. 

Also, your research was wrong. Again. Bernie paid his interns $12 in 2016, and has since started paying them $15.

:lmao you clearly know nothing about my beliefs if you think I treat politicians like gods and that bernie is my savior. :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Stinger Fan

DaRealNugget said:


> Again, where are you getting your logic from? :lol
> 
> Your criticism of running in Vermont is fucking stupid. Doesn't even merit a proper response.
> 
> Having 3 homes is a stupid fucking criticism as well. He's paid $170,000 a year in congress, and has been in congress since the 90's. Being smart with your money isn't hypocritical. Especially since one of those homes is in Vermont, where he has to live to run for office. One is in DC, where he works. And one was a house his wife inherited. If he gained his wealth through worker exploitation, you'd have a point. But he didn't. And you don't.
> 
> Also, your research was wrong. Again. Bernie paid his interns $12 in 2016, and has since started paying them $15.
> 
> :lmao you clearly know nothing about my beliefs if you think I treat politicians like gods and that bernie is my savior. :lmao :lmao :lmao


He's a hypocrite , plain and simple. Only his supporters can't see it because they don't want to believe they'd support someone who willfully indulges in all the things he says hes adamantly against. This is a guy who is against hoarding wealth and bashes the 1% all the while hes not just in the 1% but he takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from those very same people he's against. It's easy to propose all these tax increases when all he has to do is take a few talking gigs and he'll be living comfortably in his 3 homes,that is called hypocrisy. And its laughable if you truly believe all he makes is his money working in congress :lol . I'm amused you quickly ran past the minimum wage number again :lol So much for livable wages huh?

http://money.com/money/4215463/bernie-sanders-campaign-paid-internships/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eeaff906ef3_story.html?utm_term=.5cdf18ff7c9d
^Bernie Sanders pays his interns $10 an hour. 

You got him in your avatar and signature, you can look at the way you defend him.You defend Bernie like you'd defend a religion with all these deflections and downplaying :lol like I said you're a lot like those Trump supporters you hate


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

daily reminder:


----------



## Draykorinee

Imagine reading an article that says only Bernie Sanders pays interns ANYTHING and managing to call him a hypocrite...Desperation from stinger as always.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

Berzerker's Beard said:


> daily reminder:


Weird. He must have been completely uneducated on starvation caused by centralized planning.

Replace "rich people" with "government officials" and you have basically the same problem.


----------



## virus21




----------



## DaRealNugget

Stinger Fan said:


> He's a hypocrite , plain and simple. Only his supporters can't see it because they don't want to believe they'd support someone who willfully indulges in all the things he says hes adamantly against. This is a guy who is against hoarding wealth and bashes the 1% all the while hes not just in the 1% but he takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from those very same people he's against. It's easy to propose all these tax increases when all he has to do is take a few talking gigs and he'll be living comfortably in his 3 homes,that is called hypocrisy. And its laughable if you truly believe all he makes is his money working in congress :lol . I'm amused you quickly ran past the minimum wage number again :lol So much for livable wages huh?


that darn hypocrite bernie sanders, wanting to raise taxes on himself. how dare he!!!

if you have proof he makes his money through paid speeches or corporate donations or shady business dealings, then provide them. but you don't. so you won't.



> http://money.com/money/4215463/bernie-sanders-campaign-paid-internships/
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eeaff906ef3_story.html?utm_term=.5cdf18ff7c9d
> ^Bernie Sanders pays his interns $10 an hour.


what part of "has since started paying his interns $15 an hour" did you not understand? you linked two articles from 2015/2016. here's an updated article.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/674378315/new-congresswoman-will-pay-her-interns-15-an-hour-is-that-a-big-deal

"As for the $15 hourly wage, at least three members of Congress currently pay their interns so well: *Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt*.; Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., also says he will begin paying his interns $15 an hour."

if you're having eyesight problems, boy have i got the candidate for you. bernie sanders medicare-for-all plan includes health care, dental care, and EYE care. do you prefer glasses or contacts?



> You got him in your avatar and signature, you can look at the way you defend him.You defend Bernie like you'd defend a religion with all these deflections and downplaying :lol like I said you're a lot like those Trump supporters you hate


well sweetheart, if you start providing actual criticism of his record instead of blatantly disingenuous misinformation, we can have an objective conversation. but until then, i'm going to call you out on your bullshit.

edit: In other news, Bernie's playing this game to win.

* Bernie Sanders' staffers unionize in first for presidential campaign *



> Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign announced Friday it will be the first major presidential campaign to have a unionized workforce, as party activists push Democratic candidates to mirror their progressive platforms within their own campaigns.
> 
> “Bernie Sanders is the most pro-union candidate in the field, he’ll be the most pro-union president in the White House and we’re honored that his campaign will be the first to have a unionized workforce,” Sanders' campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement.
> 
> Over the past week, a majority of the staff's bargaining unit employees designated United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400 to represent them. The campaign stayed neutral during organizing efforts and voluntarily recognized the union once a majority of staffers signed union cards, according to both the campaign and the union.
> 
> UFCW Local 400 President Mark P. Federici said in a statement he expects the decision will mean pay parity and transparency for Sanders' campaign along with no gender bias or harassment and "equal treatment for every worker, whether they’re in Washington, D.C., Iowa, New Hampshire or anywhere else."
> 
> Federici added that the union will represent all employees below the rank of deputy director and negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement will "begin as soon as possible."
> 
> Outside of Sanders, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro has pledged to pay all campaign workers at least $15 an hour and support his staff if they decided to organize.
> 
> The 2018 midterms saw over 20 Democratic campaigns and multiple state parties unionize under the Campaign Workers Guild and other established unions like UFCW as staffers pushed for better pay and working conditions, a move that came during a broader activist push on the party and its elected officials to live up to the minimum wage and union policies they support when it comes to their own staff.
> 
> In a statement, the Campaign Workers Guild said: "While the Campaign Workers Guild has concerns and questions about the unionization process engaged in by Bernie 2020 management, their recent announcement shows that we have succeeded in changing the status quo. On even the largest campaigns, campaign workers at all workplaces will have unions and will band together for their collective empowerment."


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/15/bernie-campaign-2020-staff-union-1223914


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106641322046353408
I'm so terrified of getting old. :mj2 I'm too clumsy as it is.


----------



## deepelemblues

How do you cut your head on a shower door if it isn't already broken

How did BernieOld break his shower door

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS CAST CLOUD OVER BERNIEOLD'S INJURY STORY TONIGHT ON HANNITY WITH SPECIAL GUEST WHO IS ACTUALLY ON THE SHOW 3 NIGHTS A WEEK MINIMUM LAURA INGRAHAM


----------



## virus21

> A Birmingham primary school that taught pupils about LGBT rights as part of a programme to challenge homophobia has suspended the lessons indefinitely until a resolution is reached with protesting parents.
> Parkfield community school in Saltley has been the scene of weekly protests over the lessons, which parents claim are promoting gay and transgender lifestyles.
> School chiefs have now said the No Outsiders lessons, which teach tolerance of diverse groups, including those of different races, genders and sexual orientation, will not be taught “until a resolution has been reached”.
> Previously Parkfield said they would continue as normal after the Easter holidays.
> This month about 600 Muslim children, aged between four and 11, were withdrawn from the school for the day, parents said. Parkfield would not confirm the number.
> There is never a reason for bigotry at the school gates | Kenan Malik
> Read more
> It was cleared on Tuesday of any wrongdoing by Ofsted, with the schools watchdog praising Parkfield’s record on promoting “tolerance, acceptance and mutual respect” and confirming its Ofsted rating of “outstanding”.
> On the same day talks took place between parents, education chiefs and the Excelsior Multi Academy Trust, which runs Parkfield, leading to the announcement that the lessons would be suspended.
> In a statement, the school said: “Nothing is more important than ensuring our children’s education continues uninterrupted.
> “Both parents and the trust held constructive discussions with the regional schools commissioner, and, as a result of these discussions, we are eager to continue to work together with parents over the coming days and weeks to find a solution that will support the children in our school to continue their education in a harmonious environment.
> “Until a resolution has been reached, No Outsiders lessons will not be taught at Parkfield and we hope that children will not be removed from school to take part in protests.”
> In January, the Guardian reported that the assistant headteacher of the school was forced to defend the lessons after 400 predominantly Muslim parents signed a petition that called for them to be dropped from the curriculum.
> Andrew Moffat, who was awarded an MBE for his work in equality education, said he was threatened and targeted via a leaflet campaign after the school piloted the No Outsiders programme. Its ethos is to promote LGBT equality and challenge homophobia in primary schools.
> Moffat, who has been shortlisted for a world’s best teacher award, resigned from another primary school in Birmingham, Chilwell Croft academy, after a similar dispute. He is also the author of Challenging Homophobia in Primary Schools, a teaching document.
> At one of the Parkfield protests, parents held signs that read “say no to promoting of homosexuality and LGBT ways of life to our children”, “stop exploiting children’s innocence” and “education not indoctrination”.
> Parkfield parents’ community group, which has organised protests, said members had a positive meeting with the Department for Education (DfE) to discuss “serious concerns” with the programme.
> Welcoming the suspension of the lessons, the group called off its protest for this week and said it would keep the option of future ones “under review”.
> Mohammed Aslam, a spokesperson, said: “We welcome these developments and reiterate that the school needs to work with parents in a spirit of partnership and cooperation and not against them in educating their children.”


https://archive.fo/WaXpt#selection-1615.0-1745.219


----------



## Miss Sally

DaRealNugget said:


> The BLM protesters is a non-story. He listened, and adapted his platform to include racial justice. Maybe he could've done things a little differently, but it's nothing important. The only people still bringing this up are people who were never going to support Bernie anyway.
> 
> If Bernie had run as an independent, not only would both he and hillary have lost, he would have most certainly killed any chances at running again by dividing the party and would have severely damaged his movement by being known as the guy that gave us trump. He also would have had no leg to stand on, because hillary was the winner of the primaries. Sure the DNC and MSM had their biases, but in the end she won more votes than Bernie in 2016. To risk a Trump presidency by running as independent would have made him out to be a sore loser. This is Bernie Sanders we're talking about. Not Trump. His ego isn't that big.
> 
> You're acting like Bernie Sanders hasn't already been standing up for what's right his entire life. Go ahead and forget about the time he got arrested protesting segregation in one of the first civil rights protests, that he himself organized, in the north. Go ahead and forget about the fact that you can go back 40 years and find clips of him trashing foreign intervention and speaking out against income inequality and defending LGBTQ and demanding action on climate change, before these positions were ever popular.
> 
> Forget about the last two years, being the ONLY presidential candidate to get anything accomplished under a Trump presidency, by pressuring Disneyland and Amazon to raise their wages to $15 an hour, for the first time in history get the Senate to invoke the war powers act and vote against an unauthorized war, and build a movement in which nearly his entire platform is wanted by the majority of the American people, and in which the democratic party has shifted to the left and most of his opponents have adopted parts of his platform as their own.
> 
> I like Gabbard, Yang, Buttigieg, and Warren, and I hope when Bernie wins they'll be given cabinet positions, but if I am to trust someone to actually deliver on the platform their promising, I'm going to go with the guy who's been the most consistent critic of the status quo his entire life.


Thank you for your response, I don't agree with all of it but I respect your views and think you're more right than wrong. I will say Bernie's actions have impressed me at times, he was one of the few to be open to working with Trump on the trade deals because he felt it would help the people more to do so, than to sandbag the President. 

I just question if he can stand up to the full might of the establishment and not spread himself to thin. :smile2:


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> He's a hypocrite , plain and simple. Only his supporters can't see it because they don't want to believe they'd support someone who willfully indulges in all the things he says hes adamantly against. This is a guy who is against hoarding wealth and bashes the 1% all the while hes not just in the 1% but he takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from those very same people he's against. It's easy to propose all these tax increases when all he has to do is take a few talking gigs and he'll be living comfortably in his 3 homes,that is called hypocrisy. And its laughable if you truly believe all he makes is his money working in congress :lol . I'm amused you quickly ran past the minimum wage number again :lol So much for livable wages huh?
> 
> http://money.com/money/4215463/bernie-sanders-campaign-paid-internships/
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eeaff906ef3_story.html?utm_term=.5cdf18ff7c9d
> ^Bernie Sanders pays his interns $10 an hour.
> 
> You got him in your avatar and signature, you can look at the way you defend him.You defend Bernie like you'd defend a religion with all these deflections and downplaying :lol like I said you're a lot like those Trump supporters you hate


You do know interns are supposed to work for free right? In your own article it says "According to a Washington Post op-ed, almost no interns are being paid in the 2016 presidential campaigns." and you are going to bash Sanders for PAYING his interns LMFAO

Show your evidence he takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from those very same people he's against. You keep making this claim but you never show any evidence.

Also love how you bring up the three homes thing, my parents are not even close to being rich and they have two homes. What does having three homes have to do with anything? Plenty of middle class people own two or three homes, it does not mean they are rich.

People like you crack me up, you act like people like Sanders or AOC have to be living in a cardboard box or a shack if they want to be preaching what they do.

Stop embarrassing yourself FFS


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106655208107577347

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106662383659991041

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106650637461266433
Go off girl :banderas


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Tweets


She seems like a decent follow. The hypocrisy of these mass murders...


----------



## Stinger Fan

DaRealNugget said:


> that darn hypocrite bernie sanders, wanting to raise taxes on himself. how dare he!!!
> 
> if you have proof he makes his money through paid speeches or corporate donations or shady business dealings, then provide them. but you don't. so you won't.
> 
> 
> 
> what part of "has since started paying his interns $15 an hour" did you not understand? you linked two articles from 2015/2016. here's an updated article.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/674378315/new-congresswoman-will-pay-her-interns-15-an-hour-is-that-a-big-deal
> 
> "As for the $15 hourly wage, at least three members of Congress currently pay their interns so well: *Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt*.; Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., also says he will begin paying his interns $15 an hour."
> 
> if you're having eyesight problems, boy have i got the candidate for you. bernie sanders medicare-for-all plan includes health care, dental care, and EYE care. do you prefer glasses or contacts?
> 
> 
> 
> well sweetheart, if you start providing actual criticism of his record instead of blatantly disingenuous misinformation, we can have an objective conversation. but until then, i'm going to call you out on your bullshit.
> 
> edit: In other news, Bernie's playing this game to win.
> 
> * Bernie Sanders' staffers unionize in first for presidential campaign *
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/15/bernie-campaign-2020-staff-union-1223914


Here's another one. Bernie the Soclialist who loves Capitalism when it suits him when he nets over a million dollars, which lands him in the 1% of earners...the same people he detests :lol 

Guy is one giant walking fraud and you fall for it hook line and sinker :lol



birthday_massacre said:


> You do know interns are supposed to work for free right? In your own article it says "According to a Washington Post op-ed, almost no interns are being paid in the 2016 presidential campaigns." and you are going to bash Sanders for PAYING his interns LMFAO
> 
> Show your evidence he takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from those very same people he's against. You keep making this claim but you never show any evidence.
> 
> Also love how you bring up the three homes thing, my parents are not even close to being rich and they have two homes. What does having three homes have to do with anything? Plenty of middle class people own two or three homes, it does not mean they are rich.
> 
> People like you crack me up, you act like people like Sanders or AOC have to be living in a cardboard box or a shack if they want to be preaching what they do.
> 
> Stop embarrassing yourself FFS


Wait, are you in favor of his interns not getting livable wages or not? :lol The same article I posted, it even says Donald Trump pays interns 

Show my evidence? He's a guy who's been in politics since 81, do you think he isn't in anyone's pockets? He managed to get 6 million in donations, do you think that only came from 5 dollar donations from the little people? Democrats are the highest paid politicians who have the backing for plenty of billionaires, but some how you pretend the Republicans are "team rich" :lol

Its funny how you downplay his 3 homes. I already explained why it makes him look like a fraud. He's a guy who's against wealth hoarding of any kind, he's against the 1% but he doesn't ahve any issue taking in a million dollars due to capitalism or the iron of owning 3 homes. It's funny though, owning 3 homes while insisting climate change is an issue, but some how it isn't an issue for him, especially as he uses cars and planes to get where he needs to go. 

You can't complain about what other people do,all the while you do the same crap that you claim you're against. That's called hypocrisy, google it and learn its definition.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The only fraud I see here is you. You still have zero evidence Bernie is in anyone’s pocket. Also you say hes in the one percent yet he wants to tax the one percent aks himself more. How does that make him a fraud or hypocrite? You dont even make any sense. 

Again I already answered the Intern question. They are supposed to work for free. So what ever they get is a bonus. You dont even understand how things work. 

Keep embarrassing yourself


----------



## FITZ

I'm not a Bernie fan. I'll vote for him if a campaign promise is to forgive the $120,000 in debt that I have but I don't particularly like his ideology (aside from giving me $120,000). I'll also say that I don't think he's in anyone's pocket. I don't think he's rich enough to be bought and paid for with how long he's been in politics. 

And I didn't read the full context but there are unpaid, lowly paid, and well paid internships out there. I worked 5 days a week for a summer for $0 an hour.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Stinger Fan said:


> Here's another one. Bernie the Soclialist who loves Capitalism when it suits him when he nets over a million dollars, which lands him in the 1% of earners...the same people he detests :lol
> 
> Guy is one giant walking fraud and you fall for it hook line and sinker :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Bennies whole political beliefs revolve around a strong capitalist economy, saying he hates capitalism is the most naive bullshit you'll read. Rich people, paying high taxes is the bedrock of socialist democracy .

Stinger gets worse with each post.



FITZ said:


> And I didn't read the full context but there are unpaid, lowly paid, and well paid internships out there. I worked 5 days a week for a summer for $0 an hour.


Basically he was the only one paying the interns, but instead of highlighting that he turned it round to say he's not paying them enough. I think he's trolling at this point


----------



## Stinger Fan

Draykorinee said:


> Bennies whole political beliefs revolve around a strong capitalist economy, saying he hates capitalism is the most naive bullshit you'll read. Rich people, paying high taxes is the bedrock of socialist democracy .
> 
> Stinger gets worse with each post.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically he was the only one paying the interns, but instead of highlighting that he turned it round to say he's not paying them enough. I think he's trolling at this point


*hy·poc·ri·sy*
/həˈpäkrəsē/Submit
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-is-not-a-capitalist-542522435717
:lol You can't quote me saying "he hates Capitalism" because I didn't say it. I merely mocked him for his views on capitalism, him saying he isn't a capitalist all the while using it to his advantage to make millions of dollars and putting him in the 1%. 

You can't say you're in favor of livable wages but refuse to pay livable wages. Case in point, not only does he pay his interns below what he believes minimum wage should be, but his own state that he runs has minimum wage below where he believes it to be . Hell, even I think it should be higher than 10% :lol 

Bernie is in favor of livable wages but Vermont's minimum wage is $10
Bernie is in favor of fighting the 1% but is in it himself
Bernie is against owning things you don't need but owns 3 houses
Bernie is in favor of fighting climate change but uses airplanes, and cars when convenient
Bernie is against the wall street elite but supported Hillary Clinton

He's been a politician since the early 80s, he's a fraud. What do you expect from politicians who are able to stay in politics that long ? Did you really believe he's above all politicians? :lol Don't give him a pass because he says things you like to hear. 



DaRealNugget said:


>




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855240333650788353
How many houses does one need? How much money does one need? You can't have it all!!!!!!! :lol

It's always amusing what his supporters are willing to ignore and give him a pass on. You can't even argue against the points anymore as you've just ignored them and resorted to posting pictures. I'm willing to bet everything I have , you didn't know how low his minimum wage was :lol Thats why you've been trying to run away from mentioning it


----------



## DaRealNugget

Stinger Fan said:


> Bernie is in favor of fighting climate change but uses airplanes, and cars when convenient


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao












> It's always amusing what his supporters are willing to ignore and give him a pass on. You can't even argue against the points anymore as you've just ignored them and resorted to posting pictures. I'm willing to bet everything I have , you didn't know how low his minimum wage was :lol Thats why you've been trying to run away from mentioning it


:lmao I already debunked it. Seriously man, go to an eye doctor. There's something wrong with your eyes.


----------



## Dr. Middy

I mean, everybody's somewhat of a hypocrite. Bernie's defintely not exempt from that, I just initially liked him a bit more than the others. 

But this logic to me is like calling out Bill Gates for wanting to help the poor a hypocrite for having as much money as he has. 

Also, the climate change but you can't drive a fucking car. :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> *hy·poc·ri·sy*
> /həˈpäkrəsē/Submit
> noun
> the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-is-not-a-capitalist-542522435717
> :lol You can't quote me saying "he hates Capitalism" because I didn't say it. I merely mocked him for his views on capitalism, him saying he isn't a capitalist all the while using it to his advantage to make millions of dollars and putting him in the 1%.
> 
> You can't say you're in favor of livable wages but refuse to pay livable wages. Case in point, not only does he pay his interns below what he believes minimum wage should be, but his own state that he runs has minimum wage below where he believes it to be . Hell, even I think it should be higher than 10% :lol
> 
> Bernie is in favor of livable wages but Vermont's minimum wage is $10
> Bernie is in favor of fighting the 1% but is in it himself
> Bernie is against owning things you don't need but owns 3 houses
> Bernie is in favor of fighting climate change but uses airplanes, and cars when convenient
> Bernie is against the wall street elite but supported Hillary Clinton
> 
> He's been a politician since the early 80s, he's a fraud. What do you expect from politicians who are able to stay in politics that long ? Did you really believe he's above all politicians? :lol Don't give him a pass because he says things you like to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855240333650788353
> How many houses does one need? How much money does one need? You can't have it all!!!!!!! :lol
> 
> It's always amusing what his supporters are willing to ignore and give him a pass on. You can't even argue against the points anymore as you've just ignored them and resorted to posting pictures. I'm willing to bet everything I have , you didn't know how low his minimum wage was :lol Thats why you've been trying to run away from mentioning it


You keep saying oh Bernie is a millionaire then keep pointing out how he has been in congress since the 80s , no shit he is a millionaire, people in congress on average make 174,000 a year, so times that by how long he has been in congress and the comes out to about 5 million dollars. So no shit he will be a milionare based on his salary alone.

Love you you keep ignoring the point about interns not supposed to be making any money. But of course you ignore something that blows up your point. The whole point for an internship in most cases is to gain work experience not get paid. An internship is not a real full time job. Its something you do part time for a short time period.

As for VT not having $15 an hour, The VT House approves $15 minimum wage by 2024. Berne has been working toward getting $15 an hour in VT funny how you left this part out. But that is your MO

Bernie is in favor of livable wages but Vermont's minimum wage is $10- see above
Bernie is in favor of fighting the 1% but is in it himself- LOL how does that make him a hypocrite? He is fighting against himself. It makes Bernie even better since he is fighting for taxes on himself. But again you ignore this.

Bernie is against owning things you don't need but owns 3 houses- stop trolling FFS

Bernie is in favor of fighting climate change but uses airplanes, and cars when convenient- LOL again trolling, you can't even be taken seriously 

Bernie is against the wall street elite but supported Hillary Clinton- he supported her over Trump. Again just more BS trolling from you

You are fastly becoming one of the biggest trolls in this thread. You make the most ridiculous points. You are just a gimmick poster at this point.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm surprised how quickly stinger turned to troll, I guess as most people are learning to ignore berzerker someone had to take the crown.

Imagine being so desperate that you have to have a go at someone for driving.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> I'm surprised how quickly stinger turned to troll, I guess as most people are learning to ignore berzerker someone had to take the crown.
> 
> Imagine being so desperate that you have to have a go at someone for driving.


Or because Bernie owns things lol 

its because that is the only thing they can get Bernie on , stupid shit that no one takes seriously.

People like those two think Bernie should live in a cardboard box and make peanuts because he wants to held the middle class and poor. 

But it makes Bernies point even stronger that he has made over 5 million and wants to tax himself to help the middle class and poor and they give him shit for that.

We are living in bizarro world


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

people that argue for "living wage" are being intellectually dishonest . it is not a real or definable term. and we know this because the usual suspects always run away whenever they're asked to assign a numerical value to it.

that's like saying everyone is entitled to a "full meal". 










^ pretty sure this guy has his own idea as to what constitutes a "full meal". it's a completely non-specific, non-tangible concept.

please learn to debate like adults. thanks.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Berzerker's Beard said:


> please learn to debate like adults. thanks.


what are you still doing on wrestlingforum? don't you have a civil war to be preparing for? :mj


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Berzerker's Beard said:


> people that argue for "living wage" are being intellectually dishonest . it is not a real or definable term. and we know this because the usual suspects always run away whenever they're asked to assign a numerical value to it.


You know I do not agree with BM for many reasons. But he has given a number in the past.

He has said that he thinks the minimum wage for any full time "career" job should be $15 an hour. I 100% disagree, and while he calls me names and the like I at least get an answer.

The questions that I don't see answered are the details. The idea that everyone would be better off with higher wages throws a big slap in the faxe of human nature that has been happening for hundreds, if notthousands of years.

I see a lot of answers (to be fair on both sides) that ignore a lot of common what if scenarios.

That is one of my biggest issues with Bernie's politics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The details have been given over and over again. You just choose to ignore them


----------



## Stinger Fan

Dr. Middy said:


> I mean, everybody's somewhat of a hypocrite. Bernie's defintely not exempt from that, I just initially liked him a bit more than the others.
> 
> But this logic to me is like calling out Bill Gates for wanting to help the poor a hypocrite for having as much money as he has.
> 
> Also, the climate change but you can't drive a fucking car. :lmao


Bernie Sanders is the very definition of "do as I say, not as I do". I bring up his fighting climate change and connecting it with cars because of his support for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and what she's trying to accomplish with her green bill(total elimination of cars using fossil fuels). It was more so a jab at both more than anything. As for Bill Gates, he's not a politician, he isn't in control of how people run their lives, there's quite a big difference between the two in my opinion . And for the record, I don't even care about how many homes or cars Bernie actually has , my problem is his hypocrisy in telling others they can't have it but he can. So i mocked him :lol



Draykorinee said:


> I'm surprised how quickly stinger turned to troll, I guess as most people are learning to ignore berzerker someone had to take the crown.
> 
> Imagine being so desperate that you have to have a go at someone for driving.


Pointing out and mocking Bernie's hypocrisies is hardly trolling. I do it in an over exaggerated way for a reason though, because I find it hilarious how people will let things slide when its their side doing crap. That's why I pointed out hardcore Trump supporters who do the same thing. As for the car thing, as I mentioned in another post, it was about his support for AOC and how ridiculous her green bill is. It's about criticizing him for letting her ridiculous radical beliefs slide because she says stuff he likes. I'm mocking his non-existent attempts at fighting climate change by suggesting he stops using cars. 




DaRealNugget said:


> :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao I already debunked it. Seriously man, go to an eye doctor. There's something wrong with your eyes.


You haven't debunked anything, you ended up resorted to pictures and emoji's for responses because you got frustrated trying to defend a fraud. You've ignored plenty things I mentioned above(and did it again) because you don't like that I pointed out his blatant hypocrisies . You just try to downplay it and call them nothing burgers but you really have nothing to argue :lol




birthday_massacre said:


> You keep saying oh Bernie is a millionaire then keep pointing out how he has been in congress since the 80s , no shit he is a millionaire, people in congress on average make 174,000 a year, so times that by how long he has been in congress and the comes out to about 5 million dollars. So no shit he will be a milionare based on his salary alone.
> 
> Love you you keep ignoring the point about interns not supposed to be making any money. But of course you ignore something that blows up your point. The whole point for an internship in most cases is to gain work experience not get paid. An internship is not a real full time job. Its something you do part time for a short time period.
> 
> As for VT not having $15 an hour, The VT House approves $15 minimum wage by 2024. Berne has been working toward getting $15 an hour in VT funny how you left this part out. But that is your MO
> 
> Bernie is in favor of livable wages but Vermont's minimum wage is $10- see above
> Bernie is in favor of fighting the 1% but is in it himself- LOL how does that make him a hypocrite? He is fighting against himself. It makes Bernie even better since he is fighting for taxes on himself. But again you ignore this.
> 
> Bernie is against owning things you don't need but owns 3 houses- stop trolling FFS
> 
> Bernie is in favor of fighting climate change but uses airplanes, and cars when convenient- LOL again trolling, you can't even be taken seriously
> 
> Bernie is against the wall street elite but supported Hillary Clinton- he supported her over Trump. Again just more BS trolling from you
> 
> You are fastly becoming one of the biggest trolls in this thread. You make the most ridiculous points. You are just a gimmick poster at this point.


Looks like a struck a nerve :lol Trying desperately to defend your favorite politician, its quite hysterical because you and I both know, if Trump did this type of crap, you'd be constantly complaining to the detriment of your mental health. When you resort to calling people trolls, its when you don't have an argument, so I take it as a compliment more than anything :lol


----------



## Dr. Middy

Stinger Fan said:


> Bernie Sanders is the very definition of "do as I say, not as I do". I bring up his fighting climate change and connecting it with cars because of his support for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and what she's trying to accomplish with her green bill(total elimination of cars using fossil fuels). It was more so a jab at both more than anything. As for Bill Gates, he's not a politician, he isn't in control of how people run their lives, there's quite a big difference between the two in my opinion . And for the record, I don't even care about how many homes or cars Bernie actually has , my problem is his hypocrisy in telling others they can't have it but he can. So i mocked him :lol


Cortez is a head case, and that bill is just such an exaggeration it isn't even funny. I'm studying for a master's in Environmental Science and consider myself an environmentalist and even I think it's just so far out there its almost comical. I wish Sanders didn't associate with her because it's only going to hurt him in the long run I think.

But yeah, I don't really think you can find a politician who isn't somewhat of a hypocrite. Doesn't excuse him, I liked him regardless of that for some of the messages he had, although I'm not voting for him this time around.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Stinger Fan said:


> I bring up his fighting climate change and connecting it with cars because of his support for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and what she's trying to accomplish with her green bill(total elimination of cars using fossil fuels).


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao



> You haven't debunked anything, you ended up resorted to pictures and emoji's for responses because you got frustrated trying to defend a fraud. You've ignored plenty things I mentioned above(and did it again) because you don't like that I pointed out his blatant hypocrisies . You just try to downplay it and call them nothing burgers but you really have nothing to argue :lol





DaRealNugget said:


> what part of "has since started paying his interns $15 an hour" did you not understand? you linked two articles from 2015/2016. here's an updated article.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/674378315/new-congresswoman-will-pay-her-interns-15-an-hour-is-that-a-big-deal
> 
> "As for the $15 hourly wage, at least three members of Congress currently pay their interns so well: *Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt*.; Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., also says he will begin paying his interns $15 an hour."


:mj


----------



## Stinger Fan

Dr. Middy said:


> Cortez is a head case, and that bill is just such an exaggeration it isn't even funny. I'm studying for a master's in Environmental Science and consider myself an environmentalist and even I think it's just so far out there its almost comical. I wish Sanders didn't associate with her because it's only going to hurt him in the long run I think.
> 
> But yeah, I don't really think you can find a politician who isn't somewhat of a hypocrite. Doesn't excuse him, I liked him regardless of that for some of the messages he had, although I'm not voting for him this time around.


I was really only having fun at Bernie's expense if I'm honest lol . As for his association with AOC, I'm not sure if it will hurt or benefit him. She basically won unopposed with rhetoric people agree with but she's been exposed significantly since her election and looks way out of her depth. I feel like we wont truly know for a couple years when she comes up for re-election and by then we will know if Bernie is president or not and how much she was detrimental or beneficial to him . It's kind of difficult to gauge in my opinion. And as for peoples personal beliefs, I genuinely don't care whether people vote blue, red , green or whatever as it doesn't matter to me, I just take issue with certain politicians who talk down to and slander people who don't vote for their team . I'm not nearly as political as people probably think i am :lol

But I do wish you Good luck with your masters 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You know I do not agree with BM for many reasons. But he has given a number in the past.
> 
> He has said that he thinks the minimum wage for any full time "career" job should be $15 an hour. I 100% disagree, and while he calls me names and the like I at least get an answer.
> 
> The questions that I don't see answered are the details. The idea that everyone would be better off with higher wages throws a big slap in the faxe of human nature that has been happening for hundreds, if notthousands of years.
> 
> I see a lot of answers (to be fair on both sides) that ignore a lot of common what if scenarios.
> 
> That is one of my biggest issues with Bernie's politics.


See, the thing is when BM is confronted with the real consequences of raising the minimum wage, he ignores it. Like for instance, a livable 15 will vary from state to state. $15 in New York isn't the same as $15 in say South Carolina. A dollar stretches more in some places than others. A livable wage is very different for a single person compared to a person who is married and has 2 kids. There are other consequences to raising the minimum wages as well like people always lose their job, to which BM doesn't care and states that those people would have lost their job regardless, which is a ridiculous claim to make. Liberal policies always hurt small businesses more than the big companies they try to hurt Then there is the cost of goods and services increasing to offset those costs of raising the minimum wage which punishes people who don't make much more than minimum wage,which means not only does your spending power stay the same, it can decrease for others and we're right back at the same place as we were before. Meaning, in a few years time, the same people complaining now will complain that $15 isn't enough, and therefore it must increase to $18 and so on and so on. It's a never ending cycle that people who support raising the minimum wage doesn't understand. That being said, I do believe in a minimum wage but I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> The details have been given over and over again. You just choose to ignore them


so here we are, here's your chance.

what is your livable wage. give me a finite number.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You know I do not agree with BM for many reasons. But he has given a number in the past.
> 
> He has said that he thinks the minimum wage for any full time "career" job should be $15 an hour. I 100% disagree, and while he calls me names and the like I at least get an answer.


he also said cashiers should be entitled to a house, a car and a steak dinner.

also $15 will get you absolutely nowhere in any major city.


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Or because Bernie owns things lol
> 
> its because that is the only thing they can get Bernie on , stupid shit that no one takes seriously.
> 
> People like those two think Bernie should live in a cardboard box and make peanuts because he wants to held the middle class and poor.
> 
> But it makes Bernies point even stronger that he has made over 5 million and wants to tax himself to help the middle class and poor and they give him shit for that.
> 
> We are living in bizarro world


Its now all about the gotcha and not about anything else, its just a pathetic response. If Bernie loves the environment so much why does he have a car! GTFO. I'd take an Alex Jones over this Stinger nonsense.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Bernie Sanders is the very definition of "do as I say, not as I do". I bring up his fighting climate change and connecting it with cars because of his support for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and what she's trying to accomplish with her green bill(total elimination of cars using fossil fuels). It was more so a jab at both more than anything. As for Bill Gates, he's not a politician, he isn't in control of how people run their lives, there's quite a big difference between the two in my opinion . And for the record, I don't even care about how many homes or cars Bernie actually has , my problem is his hypocrisy in telling others they can't have it but he can. So i mocked him :lol
> 
> 
> Pointing out and mocking Bernie's hypocrisies is hardly trolling. I do it in an over exaggerated way for a reason though, because I find it hilarious how people will let things slide when its their side doing crap. That's why I pointed out hardcore Trump supporters who do the same thing. As for the car thing, as I mentioned in another post, it was about his support for AOC and how ridiculous her green bill is. It's about criticizing him for letting her ridiculous radical beliefs slide because she says stuff he likes. I'm mocking his non-existent attempts at fighting climate change by suggesting he stops using cars.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't debunked anything, you ended up resorted to pictures and emoji's for responses because you got frustrated trying to defend a fraud. You've ignored plenty things I mentioned above(and did it again) because you don't like that I pointed out his blatant hypocrisies . You just try to downplay it and call them nothing burgers but you really have nothing to argue :lol
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a struck a nerve :lol Trying desperately to defend your favorite politician, its quite hysterical because you and I both know, if Trump did this type of crap, you'd be constantly complaining to the detriment of your mental health. When you resort to calling people trolls, its when you don't have an argument, so I take it as a compliment more than anything :lol


You are a troll because your points are ridiculous.

Its funny you are being serious with them. It just shows how far off the deep end you are.

You are now in the Berzerker's Beard category.




Draykorinee said:


> Its now all about the gotcha and not about anything else, its just a pathetic response. If Bernie loves the environment so much why does he have a car! GTFO. I'd take an Alex Jones over this Stinger nonsense.


There really is no point debating most of them anymore. They can't even have a serous debate. When you do, its stupid shit like OMG AOC is against cow farts but she eats hamburgers or like you said OMG Bernie is about climate change but he drives a car.

And like I said to Stinger the sad thing is, they are not even joking when they make those points, they think they are making a legit point.


----------



## CamillePunk

Will the left's idea of environmentalism be an anchor for the Democrats in 2020? :mj


----------



## Draykorinee

> A majority of likely 2020 voters support key aspects of a Green New Deal even when faced with potential costs and downsides, but strict regulations to decarbonize the nation’s top polluters could trigger a backlash, according to a new poll from proponents of the policy.


No, it won't be an anchor.


----------



## Miss Sally

Dr. Middy said:


> Cortez is a head case, and that bill is just such an exaggeration it isn't even funny. I'm studying for a master's in Environmental Science and consider myself an environmentalist and even I think it's just so far out there its almost comical. I wish Sanders didn't associate with her because it's only going to hurt him in the long run I think.
> 
> But yeah, I don't really think you can find a politician who isn't somewhat of a hypocrite. Doesn't excuse him, I liked him regardless of that for some of the messages he had, although I'm not voting for him this time around.


She and her cronies like Omar are going to fuck Bernie over.


----------



## DOPA

The ridiculous nature of modern day Britain.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

3/17 3:48PM EST


Berzerker's Beard said:


> people that argue for "living wage" are being intellectually dishonest . it is not a real or definable term. *and we know this because the usual suspects always run away whenever they're asked to assign a numerical value to it.*


3/17 6:19PM EST


birthday_massacre said:


> The details have been given over and over again. You just choose to ignore them


3/17 7:30PM EST


Berzerker's Beard said:


> so here we are, here's your chance.
> 
> *what is your livable wage. give me a finite number.*


24 hours later and counting...


*birthday_massacre:*


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> Will the left's idea of environmentalism be an anchor for the Democrats in 2020? :mj



They will probably benefit because she will make everyone seem more moderate,not to mention Clickbait Artist's won't be able to help themselves and keep obsessing over her and take focus away from people actually running.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> 3/17 3:48PM EST
> 
> 
> 3/17 6:19PM EST
> 
> 
> 3/17 7:30PM EST
> 
> 
> 24 hours later and counting...
> 
> 
> *birthday_massacre:*


With all due respect would any number really satisfy you? I get the impression you're against the whole concept, which is fine, but I can't imagine people dropping any sort of number that you'd be open to. 

IMO it's more about agreeing that people probably need a higher min wage in a lot of cases in order to get by and doing something about it / or not agreeing with that depending on your view.

The $$ value of course will fluctuate slightly depending on variables, like it really does with most things like that.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> With all due respect would any number really satisfy you? I get the impression you're against the whole concept, which is fine, but I can't imagine people dropping any sort of number that you'd be open to.
> 
> IMO it's more about agreeing that people probably need a higher min wage in a lot of cases in order to get by and doing something about it / or not agreeing with that depending on your view.
> 
> The $$ value of course will fluctuate slightly depending on variables, like it really does with most things like that.


if it fluctuates and varies and doesn't hold true for everyone then obviously it is not a practical solution. 'one size fits all' isn't going to cut it.

a 17 year old that lives at home and is looking for a part time job does not need as much money to 'live' as a 25 year old single mother of three. some people save every penny they earn while some people _spend_ every penny they earn. we all 'live' differently and we all have our own individual wants and needs.

i don't know what a 'living wage' is supposed to be but i can tell you what a *fair wage* is supposed to be. a *fair wage* is whatever someone else is voluntarily willing to pay you for your services.


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

Berzerker's Beard said:


> *if it fluctuates and varies and doesn't hold true for everyone then obviously it is not a practical solution. 'one size fits all' isn't going to cut it.*
> 
> a 17 year old that lives at home and is looking for a part time job does not need as much money to 'live' as a 25 year old single mother of three. some people save every penny they earn while some people _spend_ every penny they earn. we all 'live' differently and we all have our own individual wants and needs.
> 
> i don't know what a 'living wage' is supposed to be but i can tell you what a *fair wage* is supposed to be. a *fair wage* is whatever someone else is voluntarily willing to pay you for your services.


Well first of all you completely contradicted yourself in that first paragraph by first saying a varying level is not practical, then in the next you say a static one size fits all won't cut it either. Which is it?

There are PLENTY of different benefits and similar that fluctuate due to means testing. You yourself just admitted that, so yes of course it is practical. There are simple of ways of setting levels for a 17 year old at home vs a struggling mother of three.

You've also illustrated my point by trivialising terms like 'live' and 'living wage' when if you just stop and think about it you can answer that for yourself.. How about 'live' or 'living wage' means at least you keep your head above the poverty line

However I can tell by your statement you don't believe fundamentally there is any merit in the idea at all, so throwing numbers at you isn't going to change that - you'll have an answer to dispute whatever this figure is you're looking for.


----------



## CamillePunk

While I believe Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang are good people with good intentions (unlike Bernie Sanders), I have to rule out voting for them in 2020 due to their party affiliation. The Democrats, their deep state allies, and the tech giants have formed an axis of evil in the US and cannot be given more power. Doesn't make sense to cede control of the executive branch to them just because I like a particular individual. Obama (the most recent Dem president) and FDR (the idol of the progressives driving much of the Democratic platform) were also very abusive with their executive powers, while Trump has been very tepid (too tepid even, in my view), so as someone who wants limited government it's simply the best option to re-elect Trump in our two-party system.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1108197366044262400


----------



## deepelemblues

The Democratic Party is currently the party that favors authoritarianism the most. It has made clear that its intention is to greatly increase government authority over wide swathes of economic, cultural, intellectual, and personal life, as it attempted to do with partial success during the Obama Administration. The Democratic Party is the party of the 21st century's "Moral Majority"-type demagogues, secular instead of religious. As such, any increase in its power will bring a commensurate increase in authoritarianism

Not so long ago (2001-2009) it was the Democratic Party that was the party of opposing authoritarianism. That changed on January 20, 2009, and it has not changed back yet


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> Well first of all you completely contradicted yourself in that first paragraph by first saying a varying level is not practical, then in the next you say a static one size fits all won't cut it either. Which is it?
> 
> There are PLENTY of different benefits and similar that fluctuate due to means testing. You yourself just admitted that, so yes of course it is practical. There are simple of ways of setting levels for a 17 year old at home vs a struggling mother of three.
> 
> You've also illustrated my point by trivialising terms like 'live' and 'living wage' when if you just stop and think about it you can answer that for yourself.. How about 'live' or 'living wage' means at least you keep your head above the poverty line
> 
> However I can tell by your statement you don't believe fundamentally there is any merit in the idea at all, so throwing numbers at you isn't going to change that - you'll have an answer to dispute whatever this figure is you're looking for.


*which statement is more true:*

- a fair pay is one in which an employer is voluntarily willing to pay in exchange for one's services.

- a fair pay is one in which an employer must take into account the unique living condition and lifestyle preferences of the one offering their services.


----------



## deepelemblues

functionally the minimum wage is a tax levied on having employees

tax something you get less of it

multiple cities have instituted a "living" minimum wage and seen part-time employment increase at the expense of full-time employment and businesses close down, in industries that are the most sensitive to labor costs (restaurants etc) 

also prices raised, which partially defeats the purpose of a "living" minimum wage. those who see their wages increased also see price rises that eat into that wage increase

if their employer puts them on part-time that also partially defeats the purpose

if their employer closes that totally defeats the purpose

the unintended negative consequences have outweighed the intended positive consequences in cities like portland


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

My biggest issue (as I have said before) with raising the minimum wage, is there is a forgotten loser in all of this.

The small business owner.

It's easy to pick out Jeff bezos and the Waltons and talk about them.

But what about the mom and pop flower shop that does 45K a year, and hires a 14 year old to help out for $10 an hour.

You are directly cutting into their wages, and they have to pay for it. 

Basically having a higher minimum wage gives more power to the corporations because 68% of small businesses that make less than 200k a year in sales. That isn't profit, that is just sales.

69% have household income of 100K or less a year, 10% of less than 25K

I don't think anyone wants to answer that, but how do you protect those people who are trying to live their dreams out, while taxing them because of other businesses, and even further, making them pay more to employees, even though they are just getting by themselves.

Source: https://www.businessknowhow.com/money/earn.htm


----------



## Miss Sally

I am curious about the Minimum Wage myself, I mean it's a good question because 15 bucks an hour isn't a living wage in a few states.

It also makes me wonder how people who make 15-20 bucks an hour will fair when their spending power is cut by, what? 25-30%? Right now 10 seems to be the most common, so upping the wage to 15 takes a chunk out of those already in the 15 dollar an hour range.

Berzerker does make a good point, lifestyle does play a lot on how someone can live. Someone can make 50 bucks an hour and struggle month to month while someone making 10 who's either more responsible or has a better life situation can live a decent way. So do we expand welfare and minimum wage to further cover people who's lifestyle will not improve at 15 dollars an hour?

I am curious to see if companies will just slash jobs, offer 20 bucks an hour and demand more work from less employees. I mean they could because a bigger pool of workers would be available so workers would be competing for jobs rather than companies competing for workers. This could be a major windfall for large corporations.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> I am curious about the Minimum Wage myself, I mean it's a good question because 15 bucks an hour isn't a living wage in a few states.
> 
> It also makes me wonder how people who make 15-20 bucks an hour will fair when their spending power is cut by, what? 25-30%? Right now 10 seems to be the most common, so upping the wage to 15 takes a chunk out of those already in the 15 dollar an hour range.
> 
> Berzerker does make a good point, lifestyle does play a lot on how someone can live. Someone can make 50 bucks an hour and struggle month to month while someone making 10 who's either more responsible or has a better life situation can live a decent way. So do we expand welfare and minimum wage to further cover people who's lifestyle will not improve at 15 dollars an hour?
> 
> *I am curious to see if companies will just slash jobs, offer 20 bucks an hour and demand more work from less employees*. I mean they could because a bigger pool of workers would be available so workers would be competing for jobs rather than companies competing for workers. This could be a major windfall for large corporations.


They already do this without giving their employees more money. so nothing will change but he workers will make more money

Hell the tax cuts were supposed to save peoples jobs yet those same companies still laid off workers.

The more money people have in their pocket, especially the middle class, the more they put that money back into the economy which helps companies

Not sure why people like you and BB always ignore that


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday massacre what you fail to understand is that wage and salary are completely arbitrary figures. at one point minimum wage was just 2 dollars an hour and yet the average person's spending capability was still much greater than it is today. you don't measure the strength of the economy or the health of the middle class by looking at wages, you measure it by the relative affordability of goods and services. 

raising the wages doesn't bring down the cost of goods and services, it inflates them. like with everything else it boils down to supply and demand. if you want prices to come down there needs to be more competition and innovation in the marketplace. you need to make it *easier* for new businesses to thrive, not tougher. when businesses are faced with more competition they are compelled to make their products more affordable AND offer more competitive wages.

THAT is how you put more money in the average person's pocket, not by artificially raising wages.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> They already do this without giving their employees more money. so nothing will change but he workers will make more money
> 
> Hell the tax cuts were supposed to save peoples jobs yet those same companies still laid off workers.
> 
> *The more money people have in their pocket, especially the middle class, the more they put that money back into the economy which helps companies
> *
> 
> Not sure why people like you and BB always ignore that


Probably because you are making a point against raising minimum wage, not for it.

If people have more money and more buying power, prices will go up, and in turn, the average person will still be broke

600-600 is the same number as 400-400.

It's ironic, in that scenario, only the companies you claim you are taking to task are getting richer, not the people you would be claiming to help


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> birthday massacre what you fail to understand is that wage and salary are completely arbitrary figures. at one point minimum wage was just 2 dollars an hour and yet the average person's spending capability was still much greater than it is today. you don't measure the strength of the economy or the health of the middle class by looking at wages, you measure it by the relative affordability of goods and services.
> 
> *raising the wages doesn't bring down the cost of goods and services, it inflates them. *like with everything else it boils down to supply and demand. if you want prices to come down there needs to be more competition and innovation in the marketplace. you need to make it *easier* for new businesses to thrive, not tougher. when businesses are faced with more competition they are compelled to make their products more affordable AND offer more competitive wages.
> 
> THAT is how you put more money in the average person's pocket, not by artificially raising wages.


. Prices go up even when wages don't. Wages have not been keeping up with inflation at all. And no one ever said that raising wags will decrease the cost of goods and services you are just making a strawman argument. Raising wages lets people have more disposable income which is better for the economy. 

Also even if someone is making a few bucks more an hour but the cost of a cheeseburger goes up 5-10 cents you are still way better off with the wage increase. 



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Probably because you are making a point against raising minimum wage, not for it.
> 
> If people have more money and more buying power, prices will go up, and in turn, the average person will still be broke
> 
> 600-600 is the same number as 400-400.
> 
> It's ironic, in that scenario, only the companies you claim you are taking to task are getting richer, not the people you would be claiming to help


You dont even make any sense


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> They already do this without giving their employees more money. so nothing will change but he workers will make more money
> 
> Hell the tax cuts were supposed to save peoples jobs yet those same companies still laid off workers.
> 
> The more money people have in their pocket, especially the middle class, the more they put that money back into the economy which helps companies
> 
> Not sure why people like you and BB always ignore that


So things will get better by more job less if a few people get a few extra bucks? So less jobs but a slight increase in pay will things? 

What about the people making 15 bucks already, how do they recover their spending power when now prices will simply increase to accommodate the new wage?

How does 15 bucks help someone in an area where 15 isn't a livable wage? 

How does this help the middle class? Middle class already makes more than 15 bucks an hour.

How does this wage increase help them when it means they'll have to pay more for the same work they're already getting? We've already seen company after company move overseas to save money, this trend isn't ending. It's not sustainable but there are already consumer markets growing which will eventually replace the American one or at least compete with it.

I'm not ignoring anything, you've not shown us anything that that proves anything you say will work. 20 bucks an hour is good pay, why not raise it to 20 instead of 15?

I'm honestly curious as to what data or historical trends that show minimum wage hikes to be great. A lot of people have questions on this, you must know more about it than anyone else so show us how it's going to work.


----------



## GothicBohemian

The same folks are still arguing in circles ... lol, this place never changes!

I don't know if any of you have ever lived on one income at minimum wage but it's challenging. It means going without everyday items or having to choose - Do I buy somewhat nutritious food or have a phone? - and forget about 'fun' things such as new games, attending paid events or taking a trip. Actually, forget essentials like dentists and clothing for work too. 

Living on minimum wage is doable in the short term but more than a couple of years destroys a person. Unrelenting financial stress, lost hope, diminished self-respect. Once trapped it can be impossible to escape. Education is the best way to move about the minimum wage rung but that isn't free, and those on minimum wage have no spare income and little chance of being granted bank loans.

I don't know that a mandatory increased hourly minimum wage is feasible. Employers hiring only part-time workers is the obvious issue. That's why so many low income earners hold multiple jobs and still barely make rent payments each month. The number of part time employed, and newly unemployed, minimum wage workers is going to grow, fast, because changing technology is rendering low skill roles obsolete. There are too many of us fighting for a shrinking collection of terrible jobs. 

A decade ago, everyone knew how the few homeless people in my city were. Most were mentally ill, drug addicts or alcoholics. Now there's a homeless crisis with not enough shelter beds available. Entire families, and people with terminal illnesses, are living on the streets here because there is so little work for the low skilled and much of what is available has overnight hours and/or is physically demanding. There are folks working and still homeless because many employers offer 20 hours per week or less at minimum wage. While this is happening, there are quality jobs going unfilled because of required certifications and skills. 

So, in my roundabout way, I'm getting to my point; *forget minimum wage, offer free or subsidized trade school/community college education to those unable to pay. Fill the jobs that require 1 - 2 year diploma programs by getting those on minimum wage into the classes while covering basic living expenses. It's a short term investment that both keeps people out of the government aid system long term while building a stronger workforce that pleases employers.* My province offers something similar to this, and university expenses aid as well, and it's helping a LOT of people. Ours isn't a perfect system - not all costs are covered and good credit is required to participate, which rule out many folks who've been struggling financially for years (and/or who, like me, have previous student loans that minimum wage isn't enabling us to pay down) - but it's better than trying to force companies to pay more than it's worth to them for jobs few people want unless they're students or retired and simply looking for some extra dollars and a place to go a few hours a week.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> So things will get better by more job less if a few people get a few extra bucks? So less jobs but a slight increase in pay will things?
> 
> What about the people making 15 bucks already, how do they recover their spending power when now prices will simply increase to accommodate the new wage?
> 
> How does 15 bucks help someone in an area where 15 isn't a livable wage?
> 
> How does this help the middle class? Middle class already makes more than 15 bucks an hour.
> 
> How does this wage increase help them when it means they'll have to pay more for the same work they're already getting? We've already seen company after company move overseas to save money, this trend isn't ending. It's not sustainable but there are already consumer markets growing which will eventually replace the American one or at least compete with it.
> 
> I'm not ignoring anything, you've not shown us anything that that proves anything you say will work. 20 bucks an hour is good pay, why not raise it to 20 instead of 15?
> 
> I'm honestly curious as to what data or historical trends that show minimum wage hikes to be great. A lot of people have questions on this, you must know more about it than anyone else so show us how it's going to work.


Way to ignore the point, but that doesn't surprise me coming from you.

People get laid off regardless of if min. wage goes up or not.

Like I said look at the tax cuts for all those companies yet they still move jobs over seas and laid people off. 

Why do you keep ignoring the companies moving overseas are the very same who got the tax cuts

You also dont think billion dollar companies like Amazon and War Mart can afford to pay a good wage and still make huge profits?

Companies just use oh we have to pay people more money as an excuse to lay people off even thought they make record profits

Its common sense, the more money people make, the more they will put back into the economy.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

GothicBohemian said:


> I don't know if any of you have ever lived on one income at minimum wage but it's challenging. It means going without everyday items or having to choose - Do I buy somewhat nutritious food or have a phone? - and forget about 'fun' things such as new games, attending paid events or taking a trip. Actually, forget essentials like dentists and clothing for work too.


Who are these people that are putting luxury items over basic human necessities such as food.

I don't know if you are in America, but you can get a pre-paid phone, that would be free to purchase, and $35 a month.

Also, bananas at Wal-Mart are .49 a pound, even at a grocery, they are about .89, organic food are about 1.49. You can find cheap nutritious groceries, if you are a little more shrewd, in fact.... what you are talking about doesn't exist.

The bigger problem is food deserts, which you wont hear a lot of people talk about because they are problems that actually need a real solution besides "Oh, lets raise wages"



> Living on minimum wage is doable in the short term but more than a couple of years destroys a person. Unrelenting financial stress, lost hope, diminished self-respect. Once trapped it can be impossible to escape. Education is the best way to move about the minimum wage rung but that isn't free, and those on minimum wage have no spare income and little chance of being granted bank loans.


Living on minimum wage is not built for long term though. A minimum wage is a starting wage to get you into the work force. 

Ideally min. wage would be to get unqualified people into the work force for jobs they can gain experience in. I worked a minimum wage job at 17, built up my resume and went on to make more money, and honestly, there are a lot of jobs you can do that with, and only have a high school diploma

Also, the idea that education is best, is stupid, education teaches you what is in a book, if you want to be a welder, or a bricklayer, no book is going to give you the same type of experience real life will. 



> I don't know that a mandatory increased hourly minimum wage is feasible. Employers hiring only part-time workers is the obvious issue. That's why so many low income earners hold multiple jobs and still barely make rent payments each month. The number of part time employed, and newly unemployed, minimum wage workers is going to grow, fast, because changing technology is rendering low skill roles obsolete. There are too many of us fighting for a shrinking collection of terrible jobs.


It's not even that. It's that raising the minimum wage doesn't solve a problem, it just sounds neat.

Your middle class earners make more than the minimum wage, and will still struggle. There is also no incentive for the big boys to overpay.



> So, in my roundabout way, I'm getting to my point; *forget minimum wage, offer free or subsidized trade school/community college education to those unable to pay. Fill the jobs that require 1 - 2 year diploma programs by getting those on minimum wage into the classes while covering basic living expenses. It's a short term investment that both keeps people out of the government aid system long term while building a stronger workforce that pleases employers.* My province offers something similar to this, and university expenses aid as well, and it's helping a LOT of people. Ours isn't a perfect system - not all costs are covered and good credit is required to participate, which rule out many folks who've been struggling financially for years (and/or who, like me, have previous student loans that minimum wage isn't enabling us to pay down) - but it's better than trying to force companies to pay more than it's worth to them for jobs few people want unless they're students or retired and simply looking for some extra dollars and a place to go a few hours a week.


Getting the government involved in student loans is what caused some of this problem to begin with, I don't see that as a means to an end.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

GothicBohemian said:


> Living on minimum wage is doable in the short term but more than a couple of years destroys a person. Unrelenting financial stress, lost hope, diminished self-respect. Once trapped it can be impossible to escape. Education is the best way to move about the minimum wage rung but that isn't free, and those on minimum wage have no spare income and little chance of being granted bank loans.


you mean people who chose not to put forth the effort and prepare for their own future have a harder time getting through life? you don't say.

it costs nothing to learn a trade or even basic carpentry skills. there always people/companies looking for good workers. apply as a helper and learn the skills as you go along. there are literally tons of fields you can get into.

if the mexicans outside of home depot can do it there's really no excuse for anyone else. most of them came to this country with nothing yet they're earning way more than minimum wage.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Way to ignore the point, but that doesn't surprise me coming from you.
> 
> People get laid off regardless of if min. wage goes up or not.
> 
> Like I said look at the tax cuts for all those companies yet they still move jobs over seas and laid people off.
> 
> Why do you keep ignoring the companies moving overseas are the very same who got the tax cuts
> 
> *You also dont think billion dollar companies like Amazon and War Mart can afford to pay a good wage and still make huge profits?
> *
> Companies just use oh we have to pay people more money as an excuse to lay people off even thought they make record profits
> 
> Its common sense, the more money people make, the more they will put back into the economy.


yes of course they can, but can the average small business?

what happens when minimum wage is $25-$30 an hour and only the huge corporations can afford to take on those labor costs? then what. 

i mean you haven't ever given a concrete number as to what "living wage" is supposed to be. if there's no number too small, is there no number too big? 

don't worry i don't expect a response. i know you don't have one.


----------



## krtgolfing

I agree that minimum wage should be increased, however why is everyone hung up on the $15.00 figure? Making $15 an hour and living in New York, San Francisco, LA, etc. you would not get very far with that money. Also $15 in Charlotte, NC will not go as far as $15.00 in Winston Salem, NC. Also if we were to increase minimum wage significantly it would make sense to have this slowly increase overtime instead of having it bump up significantly tomorrow. . A company like Amazon , Wal Mart, Dell, IBM, etc, can pay the increased wage without blinking an eye.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Way to ignore the point, but that doesn't surprise me coming from you.
> 
> People get laid off regardless of if min. wage goes up or not.
> 
> Like I said look at the tax cuts for all those companies yet they still move jobs over seas and laid people off.
> 
> Why do you keep ignoring the companies moving overseas are the very same who got the tax cuts
> 
> You also dont think billion dollar companies like Amazon and War Mart can afford to pay a good wage and still make huge profits?
> 
> Companies just use oh we have to pay people more money as an excuse to lay people off even thought they make record profits
> 
> Its common sense, the more money people make, the more they will put back into the economy.


You're not really making a point, is your point, "Companies will still do shady shit to save money so why not raise the minimum wage even though it may not do much good"? Is that it? 

Also a personal attack? Really? Oh dear, I'm asking how it's going to help because these are legit questions. You still haven't answered how do you make up for the spending power lost by millions of Americans already making more than 15 bucks an hour? All this seems like it would do is make more people living on a minimum wage that's not going to change anything!

Yes companies will keep moving overseas and across the border and hiring illegals because our system of Government rewards these practices. I've talked about it before that these companies are banking on unsustainable business practices because they believe another market will emerge. 

Raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour won't fix our broken system, and if people making more money is good for the economy let's raise the minimum wage to 30 bucks an hour. How about we just make every job have a 6 figure salary, think of those juicy taxes! :x

So again, I'm asking you to please tell me how this minimum wage hike will help keep Companies here and not accelerate their departure? 

I'm really not trying to be a bitch but nobody has explained how this will 1. Fix the broken system, 2. Save jobs or increase them, 3. Will be sustainable for the long term.


----------



## deepelemblues

"Business can afford it"

No, it can't. That's been proven again and again and again. Business with higher labor costs goes under at the hands of the business with lower labor costs. Or just plain goes under

GM and Chrysler weakened themselves by giving in to the UAW again and again and again in the 1990s, in 2009 they were on life support because their weakened financial state (thanks to insane wage and benefit and pension costs) left them unable to survive a recession. The gubbmint had to save them. "They can afford it" was a rallying cry of UAW in the 90s. They could not


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109173323651522560
These are actually really fucking good. :lol The Beto one ended me.


----------



## deepelemblues

Alyssa Milano: OMIGOD ALL THE DEM CANDIDATES AS REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL SCOTT CLIPS? SO KEWL!!!!!!!!!!11111oneoneoneone~

Alyssa Milano's brain: Uhhhh you know that little video makes all the Dem candidates look retarded and/or retarded don't you? You know that because I'm telling you that right now. We're still a Hollywood Left Frightbat, aren't we?

Alyssa Milano: BUT THE OFFICE WAS SO KEWL!!!!!!!11111111111oneoneoneoneone~


----------



## deepelemblues

So some kid I went to high school with and am friends on Facebook with for some reason posted up a blatantly anti-Semitic meme. An American guy and a Chinese guy in military uniforms standing on opposite sides of a table with a map of the world laying on it, puppet strings attached to each with those strings being held by grossly hook-nosed viciously gleeful Jew caricatures. I reported it, just got the results of my report - does not violate Facebook's Community Standards. What a fucking joke these tech companies are.


----------



## PresidentGasman

deepelemblues said:


> So some kid I went to high school with and am friends on Facebook with for some reason posted up a blatantly anti-Semitic meme. An American guy and a Chinese guy in military uniforms standing on opposite sides of a table with a map of the world laying on it, puppet strings attached to each with those strings being held by grossly hook-nosed viciously gleeful Jew caricatures. I reported it, just got the results of my report - does not violate Facebook's Community Standards. What a fucking joke these tech companies are.


its not the Jews who are the problem, its these Ultra-Capitalistic politicians who suck the cock of said private companies to screw over Poor Americans, if we didnt have idiots like Pelosi allowed to sit in Congress there would be much less homeless people.


----------



## goldbergstraps97

PresidentGasman said:


> its not the Jews who are the problem, its these Ultra-Capitalistic politicians who suck the cock of said private companies to screw over Poor Americans, if we didnt have idiots like Pelosi allowed to sit in Congress there would be much less homeless people.


Do you think Social Credit Economics would work instead of capitalism? It was tried in a Canadian province for a while, and succeeded. The government actually paid landowners certain amounts for using the lands resources. I don't understand Social Credit completely, but it sounds like it would work.

It's a lot like Utopia. If people have money then they would be more encouraged to spend it, and wouldn't be so burned out from work. I think they worked less as well if I'm not mistaken.

Healthy and happy all the way around.


----------



## DOPA

krtgolfing said:


> I agree that minimum wage should be increased, however why is everyone hung up on the $15.00 figure? Making $15 an hour and living in New York, San Francisco, LA, etc. you would not get very far with that money. Also $15 in Charlotte, NC will not go as far as $15.00 in Winston Salem, NC. *Also if we were to increase minimum wage significantly it would make sense to have this slowly increase overtime instead of having it bump up significantly tomorrow.* . A company like Amazon , Wal Mart, Dell, IBM, etc, can pay the increased wage without blinking an eye.



I believe this is what happens in the UK with minimum wage policy in that it slowly increases over time.

It at least helps to slow the impacts on minimum wage increases......somewhat. Though not entirely.


----------



## Genking48

It's a loss friends.

Article 13 PASSED: Huge blow for Kodi add-on and Pirate Bay users in major EU vote


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1111717938212597760
Wonder what this is all about.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/an-awkward-kiss-changed-how-i-saw-joe-biden.html



> An Awkward Kiss Changed How I Saw Joe Biden
> 
> In 2014, I was the 35-year-old Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in Nevada. The landscape wasn’t looking good for my party that year. There were no high-profile national races to help boost turnout, and after the top candidate bowed out of the governor’s race, “None of the Above” ended up winning the Democratic primary.
> 
> So when my campaign heard from Vice-President Joe Biden’s office that he was looking to help me and other Democrats in the state, I was grateful and flattered. His team offered to bring him to a campaign rally in an effort to help boost voter turnout. We set the date for November 1, just three days before election day.
> 
> In a state as large but sparsely populated as Nevada, it takes nonstop travel to connect with all its residents. You’re lucky to get properly fed, much less look properly coiffed as female candidates are often required to do. I was exhausted and short on time, so decided to not to wash my hair the morning of the rally. I sprayed some dry shampoo in my hair, raced off to the Reno airport, and flew back to Las Vegas.
> 
> The event proceeded as most political events do: coordinated chaos with random problems that no one can predict. I found Eva Longoria, co-founder of the Latino Victory Project, roaming the parking lot trying to figure out how to get inside the union hall. My staff was running around town trying to purchase ferns because according to Biden’s team, no other vegetation was acceptable for the stage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found my way to the holding room for the speakers, where everyone was chatting, taking photos, and getting ready to speak to the hundreds of voters in the audience. Just before the speeches, we were ushered to the side of the stage where we were lined up by order of introduction. As I was taking deep breaths and preparing myself to make my case to the crowd, I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. “Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?”
> 
> I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, “I didn’t wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual fuck? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?” He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, “tragame tierra,” it means, “earth, swallow me whole.” I couldn’t move and I couldn’t say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience.
> 
> By then, as a young Latina in politics, I had gotten used to feeling like an outsider in rooms dominated by white men. But I had never experienced anything so blatantly inappropriate and unnerving before. Biden was the second-most powerful man in the country and, arguably, one of the most powerful men in the world. He was there to promote me as the right person for the lieutenant governor job. Instead, he made me feel uneasy, gross, and confused. The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it.
> 
> Our strange interaction happened during a pivotal moment in my political career. I’d spent months raising money, talking to voters, and securing endorsements. Biden came to Nevada to speak to my leadership and my potential to be second-in-command — an important role he knew firsthand. But he stopped treating me like a peer the moment he touched me. Even if his behavior wasn’t violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful. I wasn’t attending the rally as his mentee or even his friend; I was there as the most qualified person for the job.
> 
> Imagine you’re at work and a male colleague who you have no personal relationship with approaches you from behind, smells your hair, and kisses you on the head. Now imagine it’s the CEO of the company. If Biden and I worked together in a traditional office, I would have complained to the HR department, but on the campaign trail, there’s no clear path for what to do when a powerful man crosses the line. In politics, you shrug it off, smile for the cameras, and get back to the task of trying to win your race.
> 
> After the event, I told a few of my staff what happened. We all talked about the inexplicable weirdness of what he did, but I didn’t plan on telling anyone else. I didn’t have the language or the outlet to talk about what happened. Who do you tell? What do you say? Is it enough of a transgression if a man touches and kisses you without consent, but doesn’t rise to the level of what most people consider sexual assault? I did what most women do, and moved on with my life and my work.
> 
> Time passed and pictures started to surface of Vice-President Biden getting uncomfortably close with women and young girls. Biden nuzzling the neck of the Defense secretary’s wife; Biden kissing a senator’s wife on the lips; Biden whispering in women’s ears; Biden snuggling female constituents. I saw obvious discomfort in the women’s faces, and Biden, I’m sure, never thought twice about how it made them feel. I knew I couldn’t say anything publicly about what those pictures surfaced for me; my anger and my resentment grew.
> 
> Had I never seen those pictures, I may have been able to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Had there not been multiple articles written over the years about the exact same thing — calling his creepy behavior an “open secret” — perhaps it would feel less offensive. And yet despite the steady stream of pictures and the occasional article, Biden retained his title of America’s Favorite Uncle. On occasion that title was downgraded to America’s Creepy Uncle but that in and of itself implied a certain level of acceptance. After all, how many families just tolerate or keep their young children away from the creepy uncle without ever acknowledging that there should be zero tolerance for a man who persistently invades others’ personal space and makes people feel uneasy and gross? In this case, it shows a lack of empathy for the women and young girls whose space he is invading, and ignores the power imbalance that exists between Biden and the women he chooses to get cozy with.
> 
> For years I feared my experience would be dismissed. Biden will be Biden. Boys will be boys. I worried about the doubts, the threats, the insults, and the minimization. “It’s not that big of a deal. He touched her, so what?” The immediate passing of judgement and the questioning of motives. “Why now? Why so long after? She just wants attention.” Or: “It’s politically motivated.” I would be lying if I said I didn’t carefully consider all of this before deciding to speak. But hearing Biden’s potential candidacy for president discussed without much talk about his troubling past as it relates to women became too much to keep bottled up any longer.
> 
> When I spoke to a male friend who is also a political operative in Biden’s orbit — the first man who had heard the story outside of my staff and close friends years ago — he did what no one else had and made me question myself and wonder if I was doing the right thing. He reminded me that Biden has significant resources and argued points that made me question my memory, even though I’ve replayed that scene in my mind a thousand times. He reminded me that my credibility would be attacked and that I should be prepared for the type of “back and forth” that could occur. (When reached by New York Magazine, a representative for Vice-President Joe Biden declined to comment.)
> 
> I’m not suggesting that Biden broke any laws, but the transgressions that society deems minor (or doesn’t even see as transgressions) often feel considerable to the person on the receiving end. That imbalance of power and attention is the whole point — and the whole problem.


The article barely mentions the little girls he's been weird with because our society cares more about adult women than children, but hopefully this story gets some attention. Biden is a creep and people have known it for a long time, especially Obama who continues to praise him.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/...e-i-broke-up-with-her-because-shes-white.html

The Left is now against interracial relationships :heston

Because white people so bad :ha

This blatant racism against whites is how you get more :trump


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/...e-i-broke-up-with-her-because-shes-white.html
> 
> The Left is now against interracial relationships :heston
> 
> Because white people so bad :ha
> 
> This blatant racism against whites is how you get more :trump












Race relations are coming along so far. The feelings are overwhelming!


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/...e-i-broke-up-with-her-because-shes-white.html
> 
> The Left is now against interracial relationships :heston
> 
> Because white people so bad :ha
> 
> This blatant racism against whites is how you get more :trump












Race relations are coming along so far. The feelings are overwhelming!


----------



## DaRealNugget

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/an-awkward-kiss-changed-how-i-saw-joe-biden.html
> 
> The article barely mentions the little girls he's been weird with because our society cares more about adult women than children, but hopefully this story gets some attention. Biden is a creep and people have known it for a long time, especially Obama who continues to praise him.


:mj4

surprised it took this long for someone to accuse him. he's on video doing this for years.

between this and his attempted tokenism getting shot down by stacey abrams, biden is a wash. hope he saves himself from further embarrassment and stays out. or not. his poll numbers will plummet anyways.

makes way for my boy to waltz right into the front-runner position :lenny5


----------



## Miss Sally

DaRealNugget said:


> :mj4
> 
> surprised it took this long for someone to accuse him. he's on video doing this for years.
> 
> between this and his attempted tokenism getting shot down by stacey abrams, biden is a wash. hope he saves himself from further embarrassment and stays out. or not. his poll numbers will plummet anyways.
> 
> makes way for my boy to waltz right into the front-runner position :lenny5


biden is weird, not sure how nobody noticed this when there were videos, pics and even YT commentators pointing out his odd behavior with women and children.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/an-awkward-kiss-changed-how-i-saw-joe-biden.html
> 
> *The article barely mentions the little girls he's been weird with because our society cares more about adult women than children, but hopefully this story gets some attention.* Biden is a creep and people have known it for a long time, especially Obama who continues to praise him.


Ewww what a weirdo, who smells random women's hair? That's fucked in the head. I wouldn't be surprised if he has mutilated animals in his basement fridge or something. It's depressing how many men in positions of power get to these points of perversion and display them so openly because barely anyone has the power to stop them.

Regarding the bolded part, you've quoted the victim of Biden's perversion writing the article, so blame her for not mentioning the little girls and leave your agenda out of it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Biden is a creepy freak and a failure, can he just disappear.


----------



## DOPA

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47764393



> The party of Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has lost control of the capital, Ankara, in local elections in a setback after 16 years in power.
> 
> The opposition is also ahead in the contest for mayor of the largest city, Istanbul, the election commission says.
> 
> Nationally, the president's AKP-led alliance has won more than 51% of the vote in the municipal elections.
> 
> But the AKP is challenging the results in the capital and Istanbul - seen as the greatest electoral prize.
> 
> The vote, considered a verdict on Mr Erdogan's rule, has been taking place during an economic downturn.
> 
> The currency, the lira, has been losing value recently and the economy went into recession in the last three months of 2018.
> 
> *What has the ruling party been saying?*
> 
> The AKP alleges "invalid votes and irregularities in most of the 12,158 polling stations in Ankara".
> 
> Its general secretary, Fatih Sahin, said on Twitter: "We will use our legal rights to the fullest, and we will not allow the will of our citizens to be altered in Ankara."
> 
> State-run Anadolu news agency says the AKP is also expected to challenge the result in Istanbul and the eastern province of Igdir.
> 
> Commenting on the results in a speech on Sunday, Mr Erdogan looked ahead to national elections in 2023: "We have a long period ahead where we will carry out economic reforms without compromising on the rules of the free-market economy."
> 
> "If there are any shortcomings, it is our duty to correct them," he said.
> 
> He had previously said the poll was about the "survival" of the country and his party.
> 
> *What are the results?*
> 
> More than 57 million people in the country were registered to vote for mayors and councillors. Turnout was high at just under 85%.
> 
> The opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) candidate Mansur Yavas won in Ankara, officials said. With almost all votes counted, he was on nearly 51% and the AKP's Mehmet Ozhaseki had won the support of just over 47%.
> 
> Istanbul has been in the hands of parties linked to Mr Erdogan since 1994 when he was elected the city's mayor.
> 
> The election commission said the CHP's Ekrem Imamoglu was leading there by less than 0.5%, but that the results of more than 80 ballot boxes were being challenged.
> 
> Both CHP and Mr Erdogan's AKP - or Justice and Development Party - claim victory in the city.
> 
> The AKP had been saying its candidate, former Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, was ahead by 4,000 votes.
> 
> The CHP also said it had held Izmir, Turkey's third largest city.
> 
> *What has the reaction been?*
> 
> "The people have voted in favour of democracy. They have chosen democracy," CHP leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu said.
> 
> Prominent journalist Rusen Cakir said the vote was "as historic as that of 1994", referring to the year Mr Erdogan was elected Istanbul mayor.
> 
> "It is a declaration that a page that was opened 25 years ago is being turned," he said.


Fantastic news, Erdogan is slowly losing his grip over Turkey. Hopefully that religious zealot and tyrant gets voted out for good soon .


----------



## Miss Sally

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...ile-8bn-fraud-helped-fund-bin-laden-wqkcsrdpz

*Gangsters have stolen billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money and used tens of millions to fund terrorism, according to police and intelligence files.

A network of British Asians based in London, Buckinghamshire, Birmingham, northwest England and Scotland mounted VAT and benefit frauds against the exchequer over two decades and made further gains from mortgage and credit card fraud targeting banks and individuals. The group netted an estimated £8bn in public money alone.

The gang, which has links to the 7/7 London bombings in which 52 people died, is alleged to have sent 1% of its gains, or £80m, to al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where it funded madrasahs, training camps and other terrorist activities, according to the leaked files.*

Unsure how this will play out or everything but shocking if true. I thought shutting down LGBT stuff from being taught in schools was pretty big, if this is accurate than it's even more crazy than I thought!


----------



## Twilight Sky

Erdogan strikes me as the kind of guy who will turn his whole military on the nation if it means he'll remain in power.


----------



## Draykorinee

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/fb2ba47b-8d50-4df1-aa42-b756e9fb26b4 land of the free to commit rape against a minor get her pregnant then marry her.


----------



## Stinger Fan

:lol

Gotta give him credit, Ami has balls for interviewing a Klan member despite being Jewish himself


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> :lol
> 
> Gotta give him credit, Ami has balls for interviewing a Klan member despite being Jewish himself


Why are KKK people always called wizards FFS? They want to be taken seriously yet sound like an underground club in Hogwarts.

Something I did note from the video is we weren't treated to the wording of the questions he asked the people on the street. Are we happy it was the same as how he asked the 'um whatever' students? If not = flawed study.


----------



## Draykorinee

I find the 'leftists' student thing particularly galling as they show no logical reasoning why they are considered leftists. Is it because only leftists go to university?

More gotcha bullshit is all I see, but its Prager U, no one takes that seriously.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Draykorinee said:


> I find the 'leftists' student thing particularly galling as they show no logical reasoning why they are considered leftists. Is it because only leftists go to university?
> 
> More gotcha bullshit is all I see, but its Prager U, no one takes that seriously.


They usually ask beforehand, there are videos of them introducing someone and what they support on more unedited videos like the Politicon video . You have to remember, this stuff takes hours to do so they are going to cut out a lot of stuff to make it into a 5 minute video. There are other videos where they don't specify political leanings .


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the 'leftists' student thing particularly galling as they show no logical reasoning why they are considered leftists. Is it because only leftists go to university?
> 
> More gotcha bullshit is all I see, but its Prager U, no one takes that seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> They usually ask beforehand, there are videos of them introducing someone and what they support on more unedited videos like the Politicon video . You have to remember, this stuff takes hours to do so they are going to cut out a lot of stuff to make it into a 5 minute video. There are other videos where they don't specify political leanings .
Click to expand...

Fair enough, what did the non left wing people say?

This is why I avoid too much confirmation bias although I probably do watch too many kulinskis or Dore's so we're all guilty of it ebbed if they do call out both sides.


----------



## Miss Sally

Black twitter is now going to be for blacks only. Well and a few select white people because too many white people were in Black twitters space!










Jim Jefferies got busted for making some pretty bad anti-Muslim jokes on hidden camera, admitting his show cuts out stuff and was exposed for pretty much doctoring the interviews. 






As for segregation on campus, this idea has been tossed around for a few years now. It's only a matter of time.


----------



## Stephen90

Miss Sally said:


> Black twitter is now going to be for blacks only. Well and a few select white people because too many white people were in Black twitters space!
> 
> Jim Jefferies got busted for making some pretty bad anti-Muslim jokes on hidden camera, admitting his show cuts out stuff and was exposed for pretty much doctoring the interviews.
> 
> As for segregation on campus, this idea has been tossed around for a few years now. It's only a matter of time.


I really don't why Jeffries has a show about politics his stand-up isn't that political.


----------



## Miss Sally

Stephen90 said:


> I really don't why Jeffries has a show about politics his stand-up isn't that political.


From what I know his whole career was based around making un-PC jokes, now he shills for PC. So i don't know if it's CC that makes him do it or what.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Black twitter is now going to be for blacks only. Well and a few select white people because too many white people were in Black twitters space!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Jefferies got busted for making some pretty bad anti-Muslim jokes on hidden camera, admitting his show cuts out stuff and was exposed for pretty much doctoring the interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for segregation on campus, this idea has been tossed around for a few years now. It's only a matter of time.


Call for segregation, but claim that everyone else is racist.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Stephen90 said:


> I really don't why Jeffries has a show about politics his stand-up isn't that political.


hack comedians that aren't really funny and don't have enough original material naturally hop on the bandwagon. politically correct, anti-trump, #woke comedy is what's trending. 

trump breathed new life into their careers.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Draykorinee said:


> Fair enough, what did the non left wing people say?
> 
> This is why I avoid too much confirmation bias although I probably do watch too many kulinskis or Dore's so we're all guilty of it ebbed if they do call out both sides.


In the first video I posted, he interviews random every day African Americans and the people he shows disagree with what the leftists in the video think. Ami Horowitz has done videos like this before with whether or not voter IDs are racist or if there's a thing as white privilege. Typically in those videos, African Americans he interviews tend to disagree with what the (normally white) leftists think. He doesn't come off like he's trying to "own" leftists but rather he's criticizing the idea of leftists talking for people(mostly minorities) by showing that normal every day people have different views on different subjects and that not everyone feels the way they do etc etc. 

I don't watch a ton of political videos myself, but I have enjoyed his videos in the past and saw that popup today and decided to post it.


----------



## PresidentGasman

Miss Sally said:


> Black twitter is now going to be for blacks only. Well and a few select white people because too many white people were in Black twitters space!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Jefferies got busted for making some pretty bad anti-Muslim jokes on hidden camera, admitting his show cuts out stuff and was exposed for pretty much doctoring the interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for segregation on campus, this idea has been tossed around for a few years now. It's only a matter of time.


im a leftist but this crazy shit is just dumb, radical Blacks not being able to get along with whites and this irrationality is just gonna drive more people to Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> Black twitter is now going to be for blacks only. Well and a few select white people because too many white people were in Black twitters space!


That white fragility tho. :heston

I liked that subreddit a lot (despite the various sjw narratives) but if MY KIND aren't welcome then so be it. Enjoy self-segregation I guess.


----------



## yeahbaby!

I can understand having some twitter account or group aimed at black users for certain issues etc, you know people can do what they want. Whether it's right or wrong, who cares.

But trying to enforce only black people accessing it? I don't know where to begin.... 

"Provide some form of verification" I don't think I've heard a better setup for a litany of jokes recently.


----------



## CamillePunk

I was hoping it was an April Fools joke but it doesn't seem to be, unless they're just keeping it going because it was funny. Some of the language does seem rather comically extreme ("appropriately apologize for your whiteness"), but no more than I'm used to from actually attending a California university where different ethnic student groups actually DO want "white-free" spaces. If it is just a joke then fair play I suppose, but y'all know that kind of joke wouldn't fly with a white-oriented community, not that such things are even allowed to exist anywhere but the utter fringes of society. :lol (Nor would I join one if they were)


----------



## yeahbaby!

It has to be April Fools.

If not then let fools be fools anyway.


----------



## CamillePunk

Ay yo where are all the Canadians who wanted to come in here and say what a mockery our president is and how ashamed our country should be? :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113205394762096644
If our guy is a piece of shit then so is yours. Sit down, shut up, and pass the maple syrup.


----------



## deepelemblues

Trudeau needs to get back to gazing dreamily at :trump like he can't live for another second without that orange mushroom dick


----------



## CamillePunk

Islamist gives ringing endorsement of white nationalism


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113105151911477249


----------



## virus21

Funny how these people thinks they won't be affected by the laws that they push


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

i wish someone of prominence would push back on the "white nationalist" slander. there's nothing wrong with being white and there's nothing wrong with being a nationalist.

people on the left often accuse right wingers of being disingenuous and racist when they use the word "globalist"... insinuating that what they really mean to say is "jew" instead. but that couldn't be further from the truth. globalist means globalist. yet at the same time they turn around and twist the word "nationalist" to mean whatever the hell they want. 

so for those paying attention, democrats don't ever want you to use "globalist" in a negative connotation. but they have NO PROBLEM equating the word "nationalist" with everything evil in the world. very, very obvious ploy.


----------



## CamillePunk

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i wish someone of prominence would push back on the "white nationalist" slander. there's nothing wrong with being white and there's nothing wrong with being a nationalist.


that's not what white nationalism is.

but yes 99% of the time it's used these days it's referring to people who are not white nationalists or anything of the sort.


----------



## El Grappleador

I'll accept it: I can't control politicians. However, there's something funny about mexican-american drama:

1. -Trump would close border. Although, to trading sector, it will cost a loss of 800 Million USD per day.


2. -The US house of representives request Mexican Government to increase salaries. Consequence: the bigger salaries, the bigger inflation index.

It reminded me a The Simpsons's episode when Stompy visited both Republican and Democratic Conventions. Foretelling? No. Just comedy.

And don't forget Chavist Regime made the same time and time again... Currently, Venezuela has a million percent of inflation.

2. -AMLO has good intentions. That's not enough to govern. He opens the gate to central american people. What's funny about immigration is both mexican and american societies share fear of the differences. Some immigrants denounced discrimination on Mexico City shelters and south borders like Tijuana and Juarez don't know what do they do with them. Therefore, Mexico is not a Third Safe Country. Remember: Racism is not exclusive from ******** nowadays.

4. -Let's go to the primal fear: why do Hondurians leave their country? Have you ever know Maras(The Central American Gangs)? This is why Hondurians get out. They fear to gangs' extremely violence. And what is Hondurian goverment doing? Nothing, absolutely fucking nothing.

These countries have different countries and one thing in common: fear. Does it should unite us? It should it.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113567561784885254
Trump supporters make the best political memes and it's not close. :lol


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> Islamist gives ringing endorsement of white nationalism
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113105151911477249


Much as they dunk on geeky lefty males,you'd swear guy's like Tucker and Paul Joseph Watson were ripped Crossfit Enthusiasts who do Carpentry as a hobby. Instead they would easily be considered Beta as Chris Hayes to the naked eye.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ws-reporter-plans-tell-congress-about-n983561

:heston

Once again, we see that whatever Democrats accuse :trump of doing, they're actually guilty of themselves

If a Republican committee chairman held hearings 'investigating' the decision of a media organization to publish or not to publish something, the meltdown about tyranny would reach levels once thought IMPOSSIBRU

I eagerly await the sanctimonious pontificating from The Washington Post about this clear abuse of government power intended to punish a press organization for exercising its freedom of the press in the fashion it chooses. Oh wait that is simply not going to happen because it is a Democrat, the loathsome twit Elijah Cummings, who is the one taking a shit on the First Amendment here

"Democracy Dies In Darkness," indeed :ha



ShiningStar said:


> Much as they dunk on geeky lefty males,you'd swear guy's like Tucker and Paul Joseph Watson were ripped Crossfit Enthusiasts who do Carpentry as a hobby. Instead they would easily be considered Beta as Chris Hayes to the naked eye.






























Well, you're right about Paul Joseph Watson anyway. He looks like a 14 year old boy. The kind that steals his older brother's weed and thinks he's hardcore because of it, until his big bro beats the crap out of him :HA

Chris Hayes looks like a 12 year old boy though. The kind that you'd make cry on the bus on the way home from school and the next day he'd lick your shoes trying to ingratiate himself to you like the submissive masochist he is :draper2

Tucker Carlson hasn't looked like a 16 year old boy since his CNN days (







), he graduated to grown maledom a while ago. Like the kid you picked on for being a mega geek in high school then at the ten year reunion he's driving the best car, wearing the best suit, has the biggest and nicest house out of anyone there, is happily married with kids and is pleasant to everyone there even you but you're like whatever fuck that geek still :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

I think Tucker is basically just bitter that most people think he's Andrew McCarthy.










Even though no one's ever seen Tucker smile like that as he can only manage either smug or puzzled.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> I think Tucker is basically just bitter that most people think he's Andrew McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though no one's ever seen Tucker smile like that as he can only manage either smug or puzzled.


There's no way Tucker's cheekbones are natural

Just sayin

That boy's had some work done I don't care what anyone says


----------



## CamillePunk

PJW is a handsome man with boyish good looks and a naturally antagonistic manner of speech

Tucker is a cool dad who doesn't put up with people's shit, would vote for president

Chris Hayes isn't the feminist ideal of a man because of his looks, it's because he's a fucking pussy


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> PJW is a handsome man with *boyish* good looks and a naturally antagonistic manner of speech


:nod


----------



## CamillePunk

If he was a lefty he would slayyyyyyyyyy


----------



## deepelemblues

He probably does quite well for himself anyway :lol


----------



## El Grappleador

deepelemblues said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ws-reporter-plans-tell-congress-about-n983561
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/m2XjBg7.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Heston" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Once again, we see that whatever Democrats accuse <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> of doing, they're actually guilty of themselves
> 
> If a Republican committee chairman held hearings 'investigating' the decision of a media organization to publish or not to publish something, the meltdown about tyranny would reach levels once thought IMPOSSIBRU
> 
> I eagerly await the sanctimonious pontificating from The Washington Post about this clear abuse of government power intended to punish a press organization for exercising its freedom of the press in the fashion it chooses. Oh wait that is simply not going to happen because it is a Democrat, the loathsome twit Elijah Cummings, who is the one taking a shit on the First Amendment here
> 
> "Democracy Dies In Darkness," indeed <img src="http://i.imgur.com/rmFv3sL.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Ha" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> 
> 
> ShiningStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much as they dunk on geeky lefty males,you'd swear guy's like Tucker and Paul Joseph Watson were ripped Crossfit Enthusiasts who do Carpentry as a hobby. Instead they would easily be considered Beta as Chris Hayes to the naked eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're right about Paul Joseph Watson anyway. He looks like a 14 year old boy. The kind that steals his older brother's weed and thinks he's hardcore because of it, until his big bro beats the crap out of him <img src="http://i.imgur.com/F66HcRC.gif" border="0" alt="" title="HA" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Chris Hayes looks like a 12 year old boy though. The kind that you'd make cry on the bus on the way home from school and the next day he'd lick your shoes trying to ingratiate himself to you like the submissive masochist he is <img src="http://i.imgur.com/7KU7Fqx.png" border="0" alt="" title="Draper" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Tucker Carlson hasn't looked like a 16 year old boy since his CNN days (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), he graduated to grown maledom a while ago. Like the kid you picked on for being a mega geek in high school then at the ten year reunion he's driving the best car, wearing the best suit, has the biggest and nicest house out of anyone there, is happily married with kids and is pleasant to everyone there even you but you're like whatever fuck that geek still <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

I don't feel like a democrat or SJW. Though, If there is something I'm not agree with Fox News is the way they host news. It's yellow journalism.


----------



## deepelemblues

El Grappleador said:


> I don't feel like a democrat or SJW. Though, If there is something than I'm not agree with Fox News is the way that they host news. It's yellow journalism.


Do you think it is the business of politicians to convene a congressional hearing for the purpose of criticizing (smearing) a media organization because of decisions it made that those politicians didn't like? 

I don't. That sounds like authoritarianism to me. At best. If congressional Republicans in 2011 had decided to hold a hearing for the purpose of criticizing (smearing) The New York Times over decisions it made regarding its coverage of Barack Obama, that would (rightly) have resulted in a political cataclysm with people (correctly) screaming their heads off about how the Republicans were threatening the freedom of the press


----------



## Reaper

If only every conservative was this honest.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113499878464708609

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113462092483387392


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113499878464708609
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113462092483387392


Ex Muslims of America are often on point.


----------



## deepelemblues

Hey now Brunei is progressive, back in the day it was a hand and foot for the first offense in some places


----------



## virus21

Draykorinee said:


> Ex Muslims of America are often on point.


And there are people, mostly white women for some reason, want some of that shit over here.






Green Day always seemed holier than thou when it comes to politics.


----------



## deepelemblues

Well (some) women like bad boys, and these Western women apologists for Islamic patriarchy have an ideological reason for closing their eyes to the reality of that patriarchy. It's a way to signal their opposition to the political right in their own countries, which is a bigger threat to their political aims than Muslim men thousands of miles away ever will be


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> And there are people, mostly white women for some reason, want some of that shit over here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Day always seemed holier than thou when it comes to politics.


Green Day is so oooold! They went political to make money because they're relics of the 90's. I was a little girl when they were most popular. Anything to make money!

Chris Hayes looks like the type of guy I'd not accept a drink from. Then again guys like him do what they do for their own agenda and for manipulation. Without their political agenda they'd be the creepers nobody pays attention to. :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> Green Day is so oooold! They went political to make money because they're relics of the 90's. I was a little girl when they were most popular. Anything to make money!
> 
> Chris Hayes looks like the type of guy I'd not accept a drink from. Then again guys like him do what they do for their own agenda and for manipulation. Without their political agenda they'd be the creepers nobody pays attention to. :laugh:


Chris Hayes wouldn't offer you a drink. He'd wait for some other guy to offer you a drink and then swoop in and bemoan the blatant sexism of the guy trying to reaffirm traditional gender roles and then talk about his feminist studies classes and then ask if you want to buy your own drink and discuss it with him further, away from the chauvinist pig.


----------



## El Grappleador

deepelemblues said:


> El Grappleador said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel like a democrat or SJW. Though, If there is something than I'm not agree with Fox News is the way that they host news. It's yellow journalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it is the business of politicians to convene a congressional hearing for the purpose of criticizing (smearing) a media organization because of decisions it made that those politicians didn't like?
> 
> I don't. That sounds like authoritarianism to me. At best. If congressional Republicans in 2011 had decided to hold a hearing for the purpose of criticizing (smearing) The New York Times over decisions it made regarding its coverage of Barack Obama, that would (rightly) have resulted in a political cataclysm with people (correctly) screaming their heads off about how the Republicans were threatening the freedom of the press
Click to expand...

Ok. I'm not against freedom of the press. In Mexico, when PRI Ruled, journalists obeyed president. That's not the point and it doesn't mind from Fox News. One thing annoy me is they talking only the negative things of Mexico and not the positive things. In fact, everyone does that without hold a minute and recognize our within problems. 

Or have Americans got enough not guts to accept their inner social problems?


----------



## Kabraxal

El Grappleador said:


> Ok. I'm not against freedom of the press. In Mexico, when PRI Ruled, journalists obeyed president. That's not the point and it doesn't mind from Fox News. One thing annoy me is they talking only the negative things of Mexico and not the positive things. In fact, everyone does that without hold a minute and recognize our within problems.
> 
> Or have Americans got enough guts to accept their inner social problems?


What? People call out out inner social problems all the time. Though some won’t agree on all of those problems.


----------



## El Grappleador

Kabraxal said:


> El Grappleador said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm not against freedom of the press. In Mexico, when PRI Ruled, journalists obeyed president. That's not the point and it doesn't mind from Fox News. One thing annoy me is they talking only the negative things of Mexico and not the positive things. In fact, everyone does that without hold a minute and recognize our within problems.
> 
> Or have Americans got enough guts to accept their inner social problems?
> 
> 
> 
> What? People call out out inner social problems all the time. Though some won’t agree on all of those problems.
Click to expand...

Well, I've never known an American conservative calling out American citizens consume drugs. What I have understood, they complaint from dealer, not consumer. If they would devise an strategy to keep out consumers, will weaken demand.


----------



## Kabraxal

El Grappleador said:


> Well, I've never known an American conservative calling out American citizens consume drugs. What I have understood, they complaint from dealer, not consumer. If they would devise an strategy to keep out consumers, will weaken demand.


What? The extreme social conservatives attack consumer and dealer... and most people want far more lax drug laws in this country.


----------



## El Grappleador

Kabraxal said:


> El Grappleador said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never known an American conservative calling out American citizens consume drugs. What I have understood, they complaint from dealer, not consumer. If they would devise an strategy to keep out consumers, will weaken demand.
> 
> 
> 
> What? The extreme social conservatives attack consumer and dealer... and most people want far more lax drug laws in this country.
Click to expand...

OMG! I don't understand why do americans persist with ban time and time again. Since Nixon's Management, war against drug end up being a failed war. I'm not saying we allow everything, but we review rules and. Strategies and check what makes sense and what not.


----------



## Kabraxal

El Grappleador said:


> OMG! I don't understand why do americans persist with ban time and time again. Since Nixon's Management, war against drug end up being a failed war. I'm not saying we allow everything, but we review rules and. Strategies and check what makes sense and what not.


What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> And there are people, mostly white women for some reason, want some of that shit over here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Day always seemed holier than thou when it comes to politics.


Provide evidence of terrible white women saying they want stonings and hands cut off in your country?

I'm talking regular people, not minority fringe lunatics.


----------



## El Grappleador

Kabraxal said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?


https://pics.me.me/the-war-on-drugs-america-vs-portugal-has-spent-over-44064685.png

Facts, baby!


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Chris Hayes wouldn't offer you a drink. He'd wait for some other guy to offer you a drink and then swoop in and bemoan the blatant sexism of the guy trying to reaffirm traditional gender roles and then talk about his feminist studies classes and then ask if you want to buy your own drink and discuss it with him further, away from the chauvinist pig.


Uh huh, his whole thing would be to come off as non-threatening as possible while I get drunk so he could manipulate me into sex by trying to play on my insecurities and disappointment.

These guys are no different from the "nice guys" that are around. They all look the same too, round heads, scratchy beard, usually glasses, open mouth selfies. At first glance you might mistake them for bottom tier gay men but then their creepy loser aura gives them away. :laugh:

There was a guy on YT who did a video on them and basically they're the result of lonely men who will do/say/become anything to get laid and/or attain some form of validation from females. They have no real self identity and despise the fact they're completely mediocre and overlooked. 

:maisielol


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> Provide evidence of terrible white women saying they want stonings and hands cut off in your country?
> 
> I'm talking regular people, not minority fringe lunatics.


I was talking about minority fringe lunatics. I never said it was all white women.


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> Uh huh, his whole thing would be to come off as non-threatening as possible while I get drunk so he could manipulate me into sex by trying to play on my insecurities and disappointment.
> 
> These guys are no different from the "nice guys" that are around. They all look the same too, round heads, scratchy beard, usually glasses, open mouth selfies. At first glance you might mistake them for bottom tier gay men but then their creepy loser aura gives them away. :laugh:
> 
> There was a guy on YT who did a video on them and basically they're the result of lonely men who will do/say/become anything to get laid and/or attain some for of validation from females. They have no real self identity and despise the fact they're completely mediocre and overlooked.
> 
> :maisielol


This is most male feminists I've encountered. Say or do literally anything to gain the approval of women, try to bang said women, get pissy when they fail because straight women don't want to bang dudes with no self-respect that act like women and are obviously trying to manipulate them. Rinse and repeat. :lol This is why the apolitical fuckboys do so well and the male feminists tend to be beta orbiters.


----------



## Twilight Sky

Women with a decent amount of self respect can see a "Nice Guy" and "The Fake Guy"(basically what the quote above describes) a mile away. Those type of guys though usually target the ones that are low themselves.

Gotta say though. . . the entertainment never gets old when seeing those kinds of guys in action. If she attempts to have a life outside the relationship, it's like the guy is one big puzzle and just falls all to pieces, oh don't let her have male friends, that's when things get real interesting.



El Grappleador said:


> Ok. I'm not against freedom of the press. In Mexico, when PRI Ruled, journalists obeyed president. That's not the point and it doesn't mind from Fox News. One thing annoy me is they talking only the negative things of Mexico and not the positive things. In fact, everyone does that without hold a minute and recognize our within problems.
> 
> Or have Americans got enough not guts to accept their inner social problems?


There is obviously problems in Mexico if so many are trying to jump ship to the US. However, I can say that many Americans do not know what is going on down there, and unfortunately, there is a lot of fact-spinning going on in the media.


----------



## LongPig666

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Is Taylor going to write a song about how she doesn't like Marsha Blackburn too?


This was a brilliant troll by Swift. All those Alt-Right/Don't tread on me/4 chan/gamergate chimpanzees were outraged by people having a political choice!


----------



## El Grappleador

Twilight Sky said:


> Women with a decent amount of self respect can see a "Nice Guy" and "The Fake Guy"(basically what the quote above describes) a mile away. Those type of guys though usually target the ones that are low themselves.
> 
> Gotta say though. . . the entertainment never gets old when seeing those kinds of guys in action. If she attempts to have a life outside the relationship, it's like the guy is one big puzzle and just falls all to pieces, oh don't let her have male friends, that's when things get real interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> El Grappleador said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I'm not against freedom of the press. In Mexico, when PRI Ruled, journalists obeyed president. That's not the point and it doesn't mind from Fox News. One thing annoy me is they talking only the negative things of Mexico and not the positive things. In fact, everyone does that without hold a minute and recognize our within problems.
> 
> Or have Americans got enough not guts to accept their inner social problems?
> 
> 
> 
> There is obviously problems in Mexico if so many are trying to jump ship to the US. However, I can say that many Americans do not know what is going on down there, and unfortunately, there is a lot of fact-spinning going on in the media.
Click to expand...


Watching it from that point of view, yes. And I can explain what's happenning not only in Mexico but in Honduras: In the last one, many Hondurians get out from Maras (Central american gangs) and Hondurian government ignore that issue. Sadly, the average american ignore this context. They'd rather repeat what news media say and freak out instead. In addition, there is another problem: as both Fox News and democrat news media are partisan. They just fight for impose their ideas and it divides American population.


----------



## Kabraxal

El Grappleador said:


> https://pics.me.me/the-war-on-drugs-america-vs-portugal-has-spent-over-44064685.png
> 
> Facts, baby!


I think we have a miscommunication... I am not arguing for the drug war nor are many Americans. That has been called out or the last decade in this country.


----------



## MrMister

This thread needs to shit on Chris Hayes more.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114262270631133185
So cringe.


----------



## deepelemblues

Tom Wolfe said:


> In 1968, in San Francisco, I came across a curious footnote to the hippie movement. At the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic, there were doctors treating diseases no living doctor had ever encountered before, diseases that had disappeared so long ago they had never even picked up Latin names, diseases such as the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot. And how was it that they now returned? It had to do with the fact that thousands of young men and women had migrated to San Francisco to live communally in what I think history will record as one of the most extraordinary religious fevers of all time.
> 
> The hippies sought nothing less than to sweep aside all codes and restraints of the past and start from zero.
> 
> Among the codes and restraints that people in the communes swept aside--quite purposely--were those that said you shouldn’t use other people’s toothbrushes or sleep on other people’s mattresses without changing the sheets, or as was more likely, without using any sheets at all, or that you and five other people shouldn’t drink from the same bottle of Shasta or take tokes from the same cigarette. And now, in 1968, they were relearning…the laws of hygiene…by getting the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot.
> 
> This process, namely the relearning -- following a Promethean and unprecedented start from zero -- seems to me to be the leitmotif of the twenty-first century in America.


https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...-medieval-diseases-spreading-homeless/584380/

Today it isn't hippies tossing aside codes and restraints in the face of a horrified establishment - today it is the establishment that tosses away the codes and restraints and pats itself on the back for being so forward-thinking while they turn their societies into teeming pits of filth. Well not _their_ societies, you won't be finding typhus affecting the ruling class in places like California - for now - but rather the societies they rule, in their minds by the light of their inherent superior virtue and intellect :draper2


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114262270631133185
> So cringe.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014940775757635591


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113682362141827072
Seriously who gets this woman out of bed and dresses her in the morning 

What a horrible job that must be


----------



## El Grappleador

Kabraxal said:


> El Grappleador said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://pics.me.me/the-war-on-drugs-america-vs-portugal-has-spent-over-44064685.png
> 
> Facts, baby!
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have a miscommunication... I am not arguing for the drug war nor are many Americans. That has been called out or the last decade in this country.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I need to work frasal verbs.
The fact is: extremism is not the solution. In Trump's case... I've got my doubts if he is a great dealer as he proclaim himself. IMO, shouting and whining is not dealing. Homework: find out what is "assertiveness".


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114261450216755200
Alexandria Ocasio-Clinton adopting an accent 'appropriate' to the audience :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114261450216755200
> Alexandria Ocasio-Clinton adopting an accent 'appropriate' to the audience :lmao


She's the gift that keeps on giving! :laugh:

Didn't she piss people off with her thoughts on reparations too? 

It's as I said, you don't need to attack her.. She buries herself on her own. :x


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

she's doubling down



> *Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Responds to Claim She Used 'Fake' Accent: 'I am from the Bronx. I Act & Talk Like It'*
> 
> https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-defends-her-criticized-fake-accent-friday-1387980



i've said this before on here. i've lived in NYC my whole life. she sounds nothing like any new yorker i've ever known.

if she spent any time around new yorkers for more than 5 minutes they would know she's not from here the moment they heard her speak.


----------



## deepelemblues

She sounded more like Madea than like anyone from the Bronx :lol


----------



## El Grappleador

Hey guys! 

I've think what's happenning in Honduras.
I've watched a video from a Hondurian blogger and discovered shocking facts:

How is behind these caravans? Maras? Extorsion? Violence? Poorness? That's leftist news media want make believe us... The Mastermind behind this is...
George Soros and Democrat Party. How? Through fundations and brainwashing, they make believe Hondurians that they are victims. And the last resource to reach liberty is trhough landing the US. Another words: left represents New World Order and Trump represents an obstacle to them.

Now, I see Trump's way is rebel, transgressive and politically incorrect. The price of his unconformity: criticize, social rejection, even fear and hate. And left counterattacks with many mind control strategies, drawing him as the villian of the tale.

In addition, I want to testify about what's happenning in mostly Latin American cultures: The mostly of hispanics won't accept their own responsibilities. We blame rich men and right government and would rather be represented by a kind of people's Messiah. Guess how? Massive brainwashing. Due to it, many Latin American Countries lived prepotence of leftist governments, and mostly of them created Lima's Alliance, which supported Juan Guaido as Venezuela's President.

Wrapping up: It's a war which I can't handle, but make me take aware of a lot of...
1. - American Dream is just a Dream... NOT a goal.
2. -I have a lot of resources whiches my parents didn't.
3. - Less news and a lot of action.
4. - It's time for a mind change.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114971900269219841
What a racist. :no:

Wonder why all these poverty-stricken people across the world wanna come here tho when it's only a good life for the TOP ONE PERCENT OF THE TOP ONE PERCENT OF THE TOP TEN PERCENT OF THE TOP 2 PERCENT OF THE TOP


----------



## deepelemblues

Why do all these non-white people wanna come live in the most racist oppressive intolerant country to ever exist?

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/...-go-blind-due-to-eye-surgery-rationing-report
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...gnores-eye-surgery-rationing-advice-bp5x77t0g

You're an uncivilized barbarian if you don't support socialist healthcare because healthcare is a HUMAN RIGHT and only socialism can guarantee that HUMAN RIGHT to EVERYONE :cudi

Except those people who get their HUMAN RIGHT to healthcare denied because of socialist rationing :draper2

Figures that socialists constantly braying about HUMAN RIGHTS in theory deny them in practice, that's what socialism does



> Ms Julie Wood, CEO of NHS Clinical Commissioners, which represents local funding bodies, defended the restrictions.
> 
> She told the Times: "NICE guidance is not mandatory and clinical commissioners must have the freedom to make clinically led decisions that are in the best interests of both individual patients and their wider local populations. *The NHS does not have unlimited resources.*"


But but MUH HUMAN RIGHT!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.propublica.org/article/congress-is-about-to-ban-the-government-from-offering-free-online-tax-filing-thank-turbotax



> *Congress Is About to Ban the Government From Offering Free Online Tax Filing. Thank TurboTax.*
> 
> *A bill supported by Democrats and Republicans would make permanent a program that bars the IRS from ever developing its own online tax filing service.*
> 
> Just in time for Tax Day, the for-profit tax preparation industry is about to realize one of its long-sought goals. Congressional Democrats and Republicans are moving to permanently bar the IRS from creating a free electronic tax filing system.
> 
> Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., passed the Taxpayer First Act, a wide-ranging bill making several administrative changes to the IRS that is sponsored by Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Mike Kelly, R-Pa.
> 
> In one of its provisions, the bill makes it illegal for the IRS to create its own online system of tax filing. Companies like Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, and H&R Block have lobbied for years to block the IRS from creating such a system. If the tax agency created its own program, which would be similar to programs other developed countries have, it would threaten the industry’s profits.
> 
> “This could be a disaster. It could be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of the IRS ever being able to create its own program,” said Mandi Matlock, a tax attorney who does work for the National Consumer Law Center.
> 
> Experts have long argued that the IRS has failed to make filing taxes as easy and cheap as it could be. In addition to a free system of online tax preparation and filing, the agency could provide people with pre-filled tax forms containing the salary data the agency already has, as ProPublica first reported on in 2013.
> 
> The Free File Alliance, a private industry group, says 70% of American taxpayers are eligible to file for free. Those taxpayers, who must make less than $66,000, have access to free tax software provided by the companies. But just 3% of eligible U.S. taxpayers actually use the free program each year. Critics of the program say that companies use it as a cross-marketing tool to upsell paid products, that they have deliberately underpromoted the free option and that it leaves consumer data open to privacy breaches.
> 
> The congressional move would codify the status quo. Under an existing memorandum of understanding with the industry group, the IRS pledges not create its own online filing system and, in exchange, the companies offer their free filing services to those below the income threshold.
> 
> One member of the Free File Alliance explicitly told shareholders that the IRS “developing software or other systems to facilitate tax return preparation … may present a continued competitive threat to our business for the foreseeable future.”
> 
> The IRS’ deal with the Free File Alliance is regularly renegotiated and there have been repeated, bipartisan efforts in Congress to put the deal into law.
> 
> Those efforts have been fueled by hefty lobbying spending and campaign contributions by the industry. Intuit and H&R Block last year poured a combined $6.6 million into lobbying related to the IRS filing deal and other issues. Neal, who became Ways and Means chair this year after Democrats took control of the House, received $16,000 in contributions from Intuit and H&R Block in the last two election cycles.
> 
> Neal, who describes himself as a longtime champion of the existing Free File program, has argued that it would “would help low- and moderate-income taxpayers.”
> 
> Free File Alliance Executive Director Tim Hugo called it “a great idea when you can provide a great product — free tax returns — to Americans at no cost to the federal government.” An H&R Block spokesperson said the company believes “Free File should be the subject of ongoing improvement, and we are committed to working with all parties to strengthen and improve Free File on behalf of the American taxpayer.”
> 
> Spokespeople for Neal, Lewis and Kelly did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the provision. A companion Senate bill with the same provision has been introduced by Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
> 
> While efforts to make the IRS’ deal with the tax preparation industry permanent have fizzled in the past, critics are particularly worried this year. The Taxpayer First Act also includes a provision that would restrict the IRS’ use of private debt collectors to those above a certain income. A Wyden spokesperson said the current bill is a “bipartisan, bicameral compromise so it includes priorities of both chairmen and ranking members.” Wyden “supports giving the IRS the resources it needs to offer more services to taxpayers,” the spokesperson added.


----------



## Strike Force

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114971900269219841
> What a racist. :no:


Please explain how that statement is racist.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Strike Force said:


> Please explain how that statement is racist.


he's being sarcastic, friend.

trump is called a xenophobe by people on the left because of his attitude towards immigration. that video suggests bernie's opinion is not all that different from trump's.


----------



## Strike Force

Berzerker's Beard said:


> he's being sarcastic, friend.
> 
> trump is called a xenophobe by people on the left because of his attitude towards immigration. that video suggests bernie's opinion is not all that different from trump's.


Gotcha. I don’t bother to remember people’s political leanings around here, so there wasn’t enough context to make clear that it was sarcasm. Thanks.


----------



## skypod

Berzerker's Beard said:


> he's being sarcastic, friend.
> 
> trump is called a xenophobe by people on the left because of his attitude towards immigration. that video suggests bernie's opinion is not all that different from trump's.



Actually it's completely different. Trump thinks anyone south of Texas is an animal and wants to waste money on a high wall. Bernie's saying we shouldn't open up the existing border thats already there.


----------



## CamillePunk

skypod said:


> Actually it's completely different. Trump thinks anyone south of Texas is an animal and wants to waste money on a high wall. Bernie's saying we shouldn't open up the existing border thats already there.


Incorrect. He thinks MS-13 are animals, and they are. Sub-human trash.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Trump:



> “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”


So he *knows *Mexico is sending trash, but he.... *assumes* that 'some' of them are good people.

Oh wait here he is clarifying:



> “What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c43bd09eeced


----------



## Stinger Fan

skypod said:


> Actually it's completely different. Trump thinks anyone south of Texas is an animal and wants to waste money on a high wall. Bernie's saying we shouldn't open up the existing border thats already there.


I'm curious, did you hear him say "all Mexicans are animals" ? I mean,did you actually hear the entire quote from beginning to end ?


----------



## CamillePunk

The whole rapists/animals thing is just typical media dishonesty, same as the media hoax that Trump referred to white nationalists at Charlottesville as "fine people". It's a shame how many people believe this shit and don't bother to look up the context and full quotes.


----------



## yeahbaby!

^Dude you can't change the words that came out of his mouth. It's not media dishonesty to report a direct quote that he said.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

So amnesty international has estimated that 6 out of every 10 women who migrate to the United States illegally are sexually assaulted on their journey. Countless numbers of people are being abused, exploited and many even killed by Cayotaje people smugglers. These same people come to the United States and many are exploited here too, working gruelling jobs for appalling wages and they are abused by criminals (often fellow illegal immigrants) who they can not report to the police since doing so would lead to their deportation. There are also many crimes, including violent rapes and murders, committed by illegal immigrants against US citizens. If the country could just enforce the Southern border properly (clearly with the current laws/ facilities they can't) then these crimes would never have been able to occur. 

Yet many (such as @yeahbaby! and @skypod ), seem to be more offended by Trump saying non-PC things, rather than the crisis actually happening. 

How many women and children, both citizens and migrants, need to be raped or murdered and how many people need to die from drug overdoses from drugs smuggled over the Southern border? 

At least Trump gives a shit. 

At least fully open borders and amnesty for illegals would allow for migrants to report criminals to the police and not have to live their live in constant fear or face exploitation.

Anyone who wants to 'enforce the current laws' or maintain the status quo is either an idiot or doesn't care. Clearly they are content, and therefore complicit, with the current situation which has caused so much misery for so many people. I have no respect for those people.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Hoolahoop33 said:


> So amnesty international has estimated that 6 out of every 10 women who migrate to the United States illegally are sexually assaulted on their journey. Countless numbers of people are being abused, exploited and many even killed by Cayotaje people smugglers. These same people come to the United States and many are exploited here too, working gruelling jobs for appalling wages and they are abused by criminals (often fellow illegal immigrants) who they can not report to the police since doing so would lead to their deportation. There are also many crimes, including violent rapes and murders, committed by illegal immigrants against US citizens. If the country could just enforce the Southern border properly (clearly with the current laws/ facilities they can't) then these crimes would never have been able to occur.
> 
> Yet many (such as @yeahbaby! and @skypod ), seem to be more offended by Trump saying non-PC things, rather than the crisis actually happening.
> 
> How many women and children, both citizens and migrants, need to be raped or murdered and how many people need to die from drug overdoses from drugs smuggled over the Southern border?
> 
> At least Trump gives a shit.
> 
> At least fully open borders and amnesty for illegals would allow for migrants to report criminals to the police and not have to live their live in constant fear or face exploitation.
> 
> Anyone who wants to 'enforce the current laws' or maintain the status quo is either an idiot or doesn't care. Clearly they are content, and therefore complicit, with the current situation which has caused so much misery for so many people. I have no respect for those people.


Honored you mentioned me by name first of all. The general running on and off topic I was referring to was the general fantasy claptrap that comes out Trump's mouth in general, and I was responding to things other people said. So please don't use that to project on to me anything about not caring about a crisis as you put it.

Also your first paragraph is interesting. Yes all those things are appalling and tragic. But guess what, people are killed, raped, assaulted all over the world constantly and it has nothing to do with crossing a border and becoming an illegal immigrant. There are already a buttload of crimes committed against Americans by other Americans, and hey, probably a damn sight more than any new immigrants. Perhaps Mexicans are so keen to come to America, even with appalling conditions, because conditions are worse for them at home? Food for thought.

Also so I'm clear, you support open borders?

Final thought, if Trump truly gave a shit - he would know what was he was talking about instead of displaying clear ignorance and spouting populist bullshit on the matter.


----------



## Twilight Sky

Open borders? The problem though is 9/11 ruined that. I think we all agree, that if 9/11 never happened, a lot of things wouldn't be going on right now that screams anti-immigration.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

yeahbaby! said:


> Honored you mentioned me by name first of all. The general running on and off topic I was referring to was the general fantasy claptrap that comes out Trump's mouth in general, and I was responding to things other people said. So please don't use that to project on to me anything about not caring about a crisis as you put it.


Nothing personal friend  You just seemed to be prominent in the posts above mine in criticising Trump's position/ comments on immigration without offering any solutions to the issue at hand. (Also wanted to move away from talking about Trump, otherwise we're in the wrong thread!) You should be honoured though as I don't post very often . I'm not saying you don't care, just that your priorities are out of sync. If it is not a crisis then what would you call it?



yeahbaby! said:


> Also your first paragraph is interesting. Yes all those things are appalling and tragic. But guess what, people are killed, raped, assaulted all over the world constantly and it has nothing to do with crossing a border and becoming an illegal immigrant. There are already a buttload of crimes committed against Americans by other Americans, and hey, probably a damn sight more than any new immigrants. Perhaps Mexicans are so keen to come to America, even with appalling conditions, because conditions are worse for them at home? Food for thought.


1. The number being raped or sexually assaulted is unusually high. 6 in 10 women. Think about that and then think about the numbers that are actually making the journey. It's pretty crazy. 

2. Crimes do happen all over the world, but this is something that US policy/ public opinion has a direct impact on. By encouraging more people to immigrate illegally at the Southern border, through sanctuary cities, amnesty, etc.

3. How do you stop an American citizen from deciding one day to commit a crime? Almost impossible really. How do you stop an illegal immigrant from committing a crime against an American citizen? Easily, by preventing them from being there in the first place. I would argue that a single murder/ rape committed by an illegal immigrant is one too many, as it is ultimately a preventable crime. It is irrelevant what the rate of crime is compared to US citizens; those people are the responsibility of the nation, even if they are criminals. Illegal immigrants are not.

4. I agree, most immigrants are good people who are often desperate to find a better life. Legal immigration should be made easier/ fairer. Illegal immigration should be prevented because of how damaging it is to the immigrants themselves and to their adopted country.



yeahbaby! said:


> Also so I'm clear, you support open borders?


For your clarification, no I do not. My point was that at least those people are aware that there is a problem (or part of it) and want to fix it. They are just wrong as it happens as it doesn't take into account the challenges of uncontrolled mass immigration, which are actually different to those of illegal immigration.



yeahbaby! said:


> Final thought, if Trump truly gave a shit - he would know what was he was talking about instead of displaying clear ignorance and spouting populist bullshit on the matter.


AOC is very passionate about lots of issues, yet too shows clear ignorance on those subjects. Trump is the same. That doesn't mean they don't care. Someone who doesn't give a shit would be ok with the status quo of thousands of people, in particular women and children, being exploited, sexually assaulted, abused and even murdered.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1117438819257737216
SNL is literally propaganda.


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1117438819257737216
> SNL is literally propaganda.


And this is new?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> ^Dude you can't change the words that came out of his mouth. It's not media dishonesty to report a direct quote that he said.


you're being dishonest right now by taking trumps direct quote and twisting it's meaning. nothing in either statement suggests that trump thinks all mexicans are animals, or that he has a prejudice towards the mexican people in general. 

trump had the _audacity_ to suggest that some of the people who are consciously breaking the law and sneaking into the country illegally might not be the most swell people to begin with. that maybe, just maybe... it's not the best that mexico has to offer.


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

Salty tears over a comedy show.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1117438819257737216
> SNL is literally propaganda.


Yikes, imagine making anti-Trump comedy because he's evil but then roast Julian when he exposed the evils of several people. These shows are certainly on the "right side of history". :laugh:


----------



## Mr.Monkey

As a non American..I just don't know what to say. I wish my country had more candidates like this.


----------



## Draykorinee

Fox News gave Bernie a good showing, fairplay to them. He had the crowd cheering his name on Fox News. He absolutely killed it.


----------



## DaRealNugget

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1117924843746361345
bernie killed it :banderas

the donald is shook


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118155023849017345


----------



## Miss Sally

Mr.Monkey said:


> As a non American..I just don't know what to say. I wish my country had more candidates like this.


I don't think either will win but I support Yang. The others I think are just corporate shills. :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

DaRealNugget said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1117924843746361345
> bernie killed it :banderas
> 
> the donald is shook
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118155023849017345


Bernie slayed it. Heads must be rolling at fox news today


----------



## CamillePunk

Bernie did kill it. Made the hosts look like complete jokes, which they are.


----------



## Stephen90

Draykorinee said:


> Fox News gave Bernie a good showing, fairplay to them. He had the crowd cheering his name on Fox News. He absolutely killed it.


Bernie's the only dem that could actually do that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> Bernie's the only dem that could actually do that.


yeah because Bernie is the only one who represents the people and not corp interests.


----------



## DesolationRow

Bernie Sanders displayed why Donald Trump running against "Argh, SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!" against him were Sanders the Democrats' nominee like the U.S. is stuck in the 1980s forever would be an error. Demographically the U.S. is nowhere near what it was during Ronald Reagan's campaigns, nor during the more centrist-driven campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans in the 1990s. Furthermore, many Reagan Democrats who came back into the political fold to vote for Trump in 2016 have been unimpressed by his presidency thus far, particularly in mighty electoral jackpots that Trump successfully flipped to red. Trump trails Sanders in almost all polling in Michigan and Wisconsin at this juncture, for instance, and the Democrats are prudently targeting those along with Pennsylvania while also correctly performing a full-court press in states whose demographics are shifting sharply toward them such as Arizona, a venue which has already signaled the end of decades-long Republican dominance barring Bill Clinton with votes having to be tallied for weeks in 2016 and Kyrsten Sinema's 2018 Senate seat flipping. Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama in Arizona by 9 percentage points in 2012; Trump comparatively barely held on at 4 percentage points, and as even the tepid neoconservative _National Review_ reports, Democrats are having no trouble finding excited second- and third-generation Hispanic immigrants happily enrolling to vote in 2020, and it is only spring 2019. 

Sanders does possess some weaknesses himself if the Democrats actually allow him to be their nominee, but if he puts more performances in as he did on Fox News, and he does something like bring aboard Stacey Abrams from Georgia--another state tilting toward the Democrats due to fast-shifting demographics amid what myriad U.S. demographers call "the white death"--he stands a good chance becoming the next U.S. president. To be fair to other Democrat would-be nominees, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden also lead Trump in almost all head-to-head match-ups in polling in Michigan in Wisconsin today, and Florida also seems more precarious with Democrats seizing on Puerto Ricans viewing Trump as hostile to their homeland, as the _Miami Herald_ was reporting concerning DNC efforts to mobilize that widespread sentiment with more voter outreach.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DesolationRow said:


> Bernie Sanders displayed why Donald Trump running against "Argh, SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!" against him were Sanders the Democrats' nominee like the U.S. is stuck in the 1980s forever would be an error. Demographically the U.S. is nowhere near what it was during Ronald Reagan's campaigns, nor during the more centrist-driven campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans in the 1990s. Furthermore, many Reagan Democrats who came back into the political fold to vote for Trump in 2016 have been unimpressed by his presidency thus far, particularly in mighty electoral jackpots that Trump successfully flipped to red. Trump trails Sanders in almost all polling in Michigan and Wisconsin at this juncture, for instance, and the Democrats are prudently targeting those along with Pennsylvania while also correctly performing a full-court press in states whose demographics are shifting sharply toward them such as Arizona, a venue which has already signaled the end of decades-long Republican dominance barring Bill Clinton with votes having to be tallied for weeks in 2016 and Kyrsten Sinema's 2018 Senate seat flipping. Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama in Arizona by 9 percentage points in 2012; Trump comparatively barely held on at 4 percentage points, and as even the tepid neoconservative _National Review_ reports, Democrats are having no trouble finding excited second- and third-generation Hispanic immigrants happily enrolling to vote in 2020, and it is only spring 2019.
> 
> S*anders does possess some weaknesses himself if the Democrats actually allow him to be their nominee*, but if he puts more performances in as he did on Fox News, and he does something like bring aboard Stacey Abrams from Georgia--another state tilting toward the Democrats due to fast-shifting demographics amid what myriad U.S. demographers call "the white death"--he stands a good chance becoming the next U.S. president. To be fair to other Democrat would-be nominees, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden also lead Trump in almost all head-to-head match-ups in polling in Michigan in Wisconsin today, and Florida also seems more precarious with Democrats seizing on Puerto Ricans viewing Trump as hostile to their homeland, as the _Miami Herald_ was reporting concerning DNC efforts to mobilize that widespread sentiment with more voter outreach.


Every candidate has weaknesses so that point is really moot. There is a reason why Sanders is the most popular candidate running to oppose Trump. Because he is the only one that is for the american people. 

Biden and Warren have huge issues though. Warren with her whole Native American mishap that Trump will be able to harp on and Biden is a creep. There is really nothing Trump can focus on with Bernie.


----------



## ShiningStar

DesolationRow said:


> Bernie Sanders displayed why Donald Trump running against "Argh, SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!" against him were Sanders the Democrats' nominee like the U.S. is stuck in the 1980s forever would be an error.



Yep..................... Just like the Democrats spent decades shouting RACIST RACIST RACIST even when Republicans would run Milquetoast Generic Republican's who aren't racist,it made people tune them out so when they shouted it about someone they actually had receipts with(Trump).To the swing voter it just sounded like a Generic Partisan Attack. Now that the Dem's might actually run a Self Proclaimed Socialist the average voter will be "so what" you say that about all Democrat's so the word has no meaning it's just a Generic Partisan Attack.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

lmao bernie killed it? wtf were you guys watching? yea if you're a bernie stan / socialist i'm sure you think he said all the right things and all the right slogans but i thought he was a clown as usual. i've never seen a guy say so much and say so little at the time. all vague pandering BS. 






he outright dodges the question and tries to turn it around on martha with his blathering. he knew he had no answer. she's 100% right.

please don't gas up the bernie stans, they're gassed enough.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> lmao bernie killed it? wtf were you guys watching? yea if you're a bernie stan / socialist i'm sure you think he said all the right things and all the right slogans but i thought he was a clown as usual. i've never seen a guy say so much and say so little at the time. all vague pandering BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he outright dodges the question and tries to turn it around on martha with his blathering. he knew he had no answer. she's 100% right.
> 
> please don't gas up the bernie stans, they're gassed enough.


And this is why you can't be taken seriously lol And no he didnt dodge the question LOL It was a bullshit question and he did say he thinks he should be paying more taxes. You can't even be honest. 

You can't even be objective.


----------



## Miss Sally

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118232615847329802
Thought I'd put this silly tweet here since it is technically Political, so who's ready for a good ol fashion book burning? :laugh:


----------



## DesolationRow

Miss Sally said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118232615847329802
> Thought I'd put this silly tweet here since it is technically Political, so who's ready for a good ol fashion book burning? :laugh:


Signs are sprouting all over within about a ninety-minute radius (driving) of home here, stating, "*Abolish Whiteness*." 

Burn the books!


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> And this is why you can't be taken seriously lol And no he didnt dodge the question LOL It was a bullshit question and *he did say he thinks he should be paying more taxes*. You can't even be honest.
> 
> You can't even be objective.


this mark :lol

there's no law prohibiting anyone from paying extra money to the IRS. if he thinks he should be paying 52% in taxes, then why doesn't he? why did he abide by trump's "totally unjust and unfair" tax code that only benefits the top 1% of income earners? why does he need to become president first?

and if he's so giving and charitable, why did he only donate *2%* of his million dollar income to charity? you don't think he used that as a tax write off?

bueller?

BUELLERRRR?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> this mark :lol
> 
> there's no law prohibiting anyone from paying extra money to the IRS. if he thinks he should be paying 52% in taxes, then why doesn't he? why did he abide by trump's "totally unjust and unfair" tax code that only benefits the top 1% of income earners? why does he need to become president first?
> 
> and if he's so giving and charitable, why did he only donate *2%* of his million dollar income to charity? you don't think he used that as a tax write off?
> 
> bueller?
> 
> BUELLERRRR?


LOL stop embarssing yourself. Back to ignore you go. You are not a serious poster.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL stop embarssing yourself. Back to ignore you go. You are not a serious poster.


birthday massacre when he enters a discussion:














birthday massacre once he's confronted with logic and reasoning:















birthday massacre by the end of the discussion:


----------



## CamillePunk

The biggest threat to Bernie is Kamala Harris, who seems more and more likely to be the neoliberal puppet of choice for the DNC. If he gets past her then Trump will be in trouble. If not then I think it'll be very close and I'd give Trump the slight edge. 

I really don't think gaffe machine Joe Biden has any staying power. The Democrats like to find any reason to clutch their pearls, typically concerning anything that can be interpreted as "problematic" by any given Twitter verified social justice scholar. Biden would honestly have a better chance in a Republican primary than a Democrat one in the current year. I'm not even talking about people of color (look at how black Virginians gave zero fucks about their KKK costume-wearing governor). I'm talking about highly racially sensitive, super woke white liberals. They'll be his biggest problem. :lol 

Yes Kamala has a problem with her drug warrior background, but honestly I doubt it'll come into play that much. White liberals will be hesitant to criticize her, and I doubt anyone else will raise too much of a fuss about it within the neoliberal camp. I do think she'll be the weaker candidate in the general than Bernie though, with progressives even more hesitant to throw their lot in with another neoliberal who triumphed over their beloved quasi-socialist of choice, after Clinton crashed and burned last time around. 

Talking about Elizabeth Warren or anyone else is a waste of time. I like some things about Tulsi and Yang but the fact is that nobody from the left wing of the party is taking many votes away from Bernie. They're just there to influence the platform for the general, which is valid.


----------



## Ryder92

Berzerker's Beard said:


> lmao bernie killed it? wtf were you guys watching? yea if you're a bernie stan / socialist i'm sure you think he said all the right things and all the right slogans but i thought he was a clown as usual. i've never seen a guy say so much and say so little at the time. all vague pandering BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he outright dodges the question and tries to turn it around on martha with his blathering. he knew he had no answer. she's 100% right.
> 
> please don't gas up the bernie stans, they're gassed enough.


Has this asshole ever smiled? He is a milionaire that has worked so little, but yet he is so unhappy. He is just like a lot of the cynical and nihilistic beta males that support him.


----------



## Strike Force

Berzerker's Beard said:


> birthday massacre when he enters a discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> birthday massacre once he's confronted with logic and reasoning:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> birthday massacre by the end of the discussion:


Fantastic post. There's a reason that my "ignore" list has a grand total of one person on it. And I think we all know who I'm talking about...


----------



## DaRealNugget

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118317574301863936
:lol is he really going to start turning on his own propaganda network?

kamala will be the establishment pick, but I think the only true threat to bernie will be the man himself.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115344669368619014

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115683670260625409

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114649105937178624

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116029842678538240

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116051647787098114

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116379216570986496

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116693701990940672

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116697476319207429

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116717613470683137


----------



## DesolationRow

Kamala Harris is obviously the Democratic Party machine's pick and has been for a while. If certain elements of the Democrats' constituencies view Bernie Sanders the way they did in 2016 against Harris, it could be a major problem for Sanders. Not because Sanders would be seen as explicitly horrific--he has unquestionably Bent The Knee to Black Lives Matter, for instance--but because Harris is racially and sexually "non-problematic" as one U.C. Berkeley professor of some such-and-such studies explained the other day to a panel. 

Real Clear Politics has noted that between five different polls averaged since the beginning of April Joe Biden, Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg have managed to amass 62% of all Democratic voters' loyalty (for now) through said polling. A fair number of feminists are angry because the three white women running, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kristen Gillibrand have, cumulatively, 8%. Julian Castro represents the Hispanics in the coalition racially and is at 1%. Harris and Cory Booker, as blacks, stand at 13% together, though Booker is stuck at 3%. Sanders is first in raising money at now over $20 million, with Harris at around $12 million and O'Rourke is third with $9 million in only 18 days (impressive). Buttigieg is fourth with about $8 million now.

With Biden having to go on defense due to his "handsiness" and the like with myriad women coming out of the woodwork saying he inappropriately touched them, he is clearly vulnerable. The question becomes now how powerfully the Democratic machine is able to push Harris in the next six months leading up to primary season. Because unfortunately for Sanders and Biden a large number of people within the Democrats' coalition are already agitating over the whiteness and maleness of the non-Harris frontrunners. How agitated probably depends on Democratic machine's media allies' manipulations over the coming months. Will be fascinating to follow.


----------



## CamillePunk

Literally forgot Beto O'Rourke existed. :lol Don't see him factoring in much regardless. Straight white male, no campaign-defining policy positions, doesn't really appeal to the neoliberal/identity politick coalition nor the progressives. 

Haven't followed Buttigieg much at all. Have seen some rather absurd quotes by him on Twitter but that's about it. Apparently he's gay.


----------



## DesolationRow

CamillePunk said:


> Literally forgot Beto O'Rourke existed. :lol Don't see him factoring in much regardless. Straight white male, no campaign-defining policy positions, doesn't really appeal to the neoliberal/identity politick coalition nor the progressives.
> 
> Haven't followed Buttigieg much at all. Have seen some rather absurd quotes by him on Twitter but that's about it. Apparently he's gay.


O'Rourke's single greatest asset in the late-2010s U.S. is his vacuousness. A large number of women seem to think he is fetching, too. He is more of a "fringe frontrunner" but he seems to have some significant energy behind him at the moment given how much money he raised this early spring in so short an amount of time. It probably melts away in the summer heat; he has likely already peaked, and the _souffle_ is consequently mistimed. However, although he will never crack the fortified Bernie Sanders coalition, especially being a neoliberal given his track record, or what track record he has, he could give the Democratic machine one alternative to Kamala-Mania given that she has her own foibles that may ultimately knock her off-track. So expect to see him promoted as a possibility. On the other hand, if Kamala Harris is able to climb her way upward in the polls with the money her campaign has raised it is conceivable that O'Rourke could be a vice-presidential pick following vetting due to how superbly he performed in nearly flipping a Republican Senate seat held by Ted Cruz in Texas. Particularly as every recent report concerning that race depicts the point even more clearly that the margin of victory for Cruz was almost breathtakingly slim. In _Texas_. That and that alone is more than enough for the Democrats' corporate bigwigs to happily give O'Rourke a thorough look, like Major League Baseball teams scouting a high school kid who can throw over 90 miles per hour.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

DaRealNugget said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118317574301863936
> :lol is he really going to start turning on his own propaganda network?


yea this is ridiculous. fox news does not owe trump, or anyone, their undying loyalty. he's way out of pocket with this.

and yes fox news is *mostly* a right wing propaganda network, but of the big 3 in cable news they at least pretend to be the most fair and balanced. they should be encouraged, not criticized, for inviting bernie sanders. 

and while i think he's a huge buffoon, i commend sanders for at least having the balls to go on fox news and defend his position. most prominent figures on the left are too cowardly to enter the lion's den and would rather remain in the comfort of their echo chambers.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> Signs are sprouting all over within about a ninety-minute radius (driving) of home here, stating, "*Abolish Whiteness*."
> 
> Burn the books!


5 churros says those signs were done mostly by whites with a few non-whites who were.. radicalized by whites. :laugh: 

These people remind me of cheaters, closet cases and vehement anti-racists. They're so sure everyone else is the guilty but not them, no, no, not them because by virtue of saying they're not, means they're not even though the signs say otherwise. :x



CamillePunk said:


> The biggest threat to Bernie is Kamala Harris, who seems more and more likely to be the neoliberal puppet of choice for the DNC. If he gets past her then Trump will be in trouble. If not then I think it'll be very close and I'd give Trump the slight edge.
> 
> I really don't think gaffe machine Joe Biden has any staying power. The Democrats like to find any reason to clutch their pearls, typically concerning anything that can be interpreted as "problematic" by any given Twitter verified social justice scholar. Biden would honestly have a better chance in a Republican primary than a Democrat one in the current year. I'm not even talking about people of color (look at how black Virginians gave zero fucks about their KKK costume-wearing governor). I'm talking about highly racially sensitive, super woke white liberals. They'll be his biggest problem. :lol
> 
> Yes Kamala has a problem with her drug warrior background, but honestly I doubt it'll come into play that much. White liberals will be hesitant to criticize her, and I doubt anyone else will raise too much of a fuss about it within the neoliberal camp. I do think she'll be the weaker candidate in the general than Bernie though, with progressives even more hesitant to throw their lot in with another neoliberal who triumphed over their beloved quasi-socialist of choice, after Clinton crashed and burned last time around.
> 
> Talking about Elizabeth Warren or anyone else is a waste of time. I like some things about Tulsi and Yang but the fact is that nobody from the left wing of the party is taking many votes away from Bernie. They're just there to influence the platform for the general, which is valid.


Bernie can only get away with talking about Trump for so long, Kamala is like the horde that's approaching but is ignored. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Bernie Bro meme comes back and he faces a woman of color with the cannons of Feminism pointed at him!

WHUTS BERNIE GONNA DO WHEN KAMALA MANIA RUNS WILD ON YOU?!

Bowing down to BLM etc won't amount to a thing because he's a pasty old man going against a younger woman of color. Not to mention she has the blessings of Gog and Magog! (Democratic party and the MSM.) 

Trump versus Bernie will be a treat but I want to see if Bernie cracks and bends the knee to Kamala! Can we get a betting pool on this? :laugh:


----------



## DaRealNugget

i'm not worried about beta o'dork. he'll fall off one of those tables he jumps on to give his stump speech and it'll be glorious. besides, pete butt is a better beto than beta. 

but even pete butt is bad.

*‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum*



> WASHINGTON — When Leah Daughtry, a former Democratic Party official, addressed a closed-door gathering of about 100 wealthy liberal donors in San Francisco last month, all it took was a review of the 2020 primary rules to throw a scare in them.
> 
> Democrats are likely to go into their convention next summer without having settled on a presidential nominee, said Ms. Daughtry, who ran her party’s conventions in 2008 and 2016, the last two times the nomination was contested. And Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is well positioned to be one of the last candidates standing, she noted.
> 
> “I think I freaked them out,” Ms. Daughtry recalled with a chuckle, an assessment that was confirmed by three other attendees. They are hardly alone.
> 
> From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington, mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried that their effort to defeat President Trump in 2020 could be complicated by Mr. Sanders, in a political scenario all too reminiscent of how Mr. Trump himself seized the Republican nomination in 2016.
> 
> How, some Democrats are beginning to ask, do they thwart a 70-something candidate from outside the party structure who is immune to intimidation or incentive and wields support from an unwavering base, without simply reinforcing his “the establishment is out to get me”’ message — the same grievance Mr. Trump used to great effect?
> 
> But stopping Mr. Sanders, or at least preventing a contentious convention, could prove difficult for Democrats.
> 
> He has enormous financial advantages — already substantially outraising his Democratic rivals — that can sustain a major campaign through the primaries. And he is well positioned to benefit from a historically large field of candidates that would splinter the vote: If he wins a substantial number of primaries and caucuses and comes in second in others, thanks to his deeply loyal base of voters across many states, he would pick up formidable numbers of delegates.
> 
> To a not-insignificant number of Democrats, of course, Mr. Sanders’s populist agenda is exactly what the country needs. And he has proved his mettle, having emerged from the margins to mount a surprisingly strong challenge to Hillary Clinton, earning 13 million votes and capturing 23 primaries or caucuses.
> 
> His strength on the left gives him a real prospect of winning the Democratic nomination and could make him competitive for the presidency if his economic justice message resonates in the Midwest as much as Mr. Trump’s appeals to hard-edge nationalism did in 2016. And for many Sanders supporters, the anxieties of establishment Democrats are not a concern.
> 
> That prospect is spooking establishment-aligned Democrats, some of whom are worried that his nomination could lure a third-party centrist into the field. And it is also creating tensions about what, if anything, should be done to halt Mr. Sanders.
> 
> Some in the party still harbor anger over the 2016 race, when he ran against Mrs. Clinton, and his continuing resistance to becoming a Democrat. But his critics are chiefly motivated by a fear that nominating an avowed socialist would all but ensure Mr. Trump a second term.
> 
> *“There’s a growing realization that Sanders could end up winning this thing, or certainly that he stays in so long that he damages the actual winner,” said David Brock, the liberal organizer, who said he has had discussions with other operatives about an anti-Sanders campaign and believes it should commence “sooner rather than later.”*
> 
> But to some veterans of the still-raw 2016 primary, a heavy-handed intervention may only embolden him and his fervent supporters.
> 
> R. T. Rybak, the former Minneapolis mayor who was vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, complained bitterly about the party’s tilt toward Mrs. Clinton back then, and warned that it would backfire if his fellow mainstream Democrats “start with the idea that you’re trying to stop somebody.”
> 
> If the party fractures again, “or if we even have anybody raising an eyebrow of ‘I’m not happy about this,’ we’re going to lose and they’ll have this loss on their hands,” Mr. Rybak said of the anti-Sanders forces, pleading with them to not make him “a martyr.”
> 
> A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
> 
> The good news for Mr. Sanders’s foes is that his polling is down significantly in early-nominating states from 2016, he is viewed more negatively among Democrats than many of his top rivals, and he has already publicly vowed to support the party’s nominee if he falls short.
> 
> “Bernie Sanders believes the most critical mission we have before us is to defeat Donald Trump,” said Faiz Shakir, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager. “Any and all decisions over the coming year will emanate from that key goal.”
> 
> Or, as former Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri put it: “One thing we have now that we didn’t in ’16 is the uniting force of Trump. There will be tremendous pressure on Bernie and his followers to fall in line because of what Trump represents.”
> 
> But Mr. Sanders is also taking steps that signal he is committed for the duration of the race — and will strike back aggressively when he’s attacked. On Saturday his campaign sent a blistering letter to the Center for American Progress, a Clinton-aligned liberal think tank, accusing them of abetting Mr. Trump’s attacks, of playing a “destructive” role in Democratic politics, and of being beholden to “the corporate money” they receive. The letter came days after a website aligned with the center aired a video highlighting Mr. Sanders’s status as a millionaire.
> 
> With other mainline party leaders, he is offering more honey than vinegar.
> 
> Last month, for example, he used his first trip to Iowa as a 2020 candidate to quietly meet with Jeff Link, a veteran party strategist, and Patty Judge, the former state agriculture secretary, to discuss rural policy and politics, according to a Democrat familiar with the meeting. Mr. Sanders’s campaign also reached out to Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers and a top Clinton ally in 2016, to have her join them at what they called an “Ohio workers town hall” on Sunday.
> 
> “If anybody thinks Bernie Sanders is incapable of doing politics, they haven’t seen him in Congress for 30 years,” said Tad Devine, Mr. Sanders’s longtime strategist, who is not working for his campaign this year. “The guy is trying to win this time.”
> 
> But such outreach matters little to many Democrats, especially donors and party officials, who are growing more alarmed about Mr. Sanders’s candidacy.
> 
> Mr. Brock, who supported Mrs. Clinton’s past presidential bids, said “the Bernie question comes up in every fund-raising meeting I do.” Steven Rattner, a major Democratic Party donor, said the topic was discussed “endlessly” in his orbit, and among Democratic leaders it was becoming hard to block out.
> 
> “It has gone from being a low hum to a rumble,” said Susan Swecker, the chairwoman of Virginia’s Democratic Party.
> 
> Howard Wolfson, who spent months immersed in Democratic polling and focus groups on behalf of former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, had a blunt message for Sanders skeptics: “People underestimate the possibility of him becoming the nominee at their own peril.”
> 
> *The discussion about Mr. Sanders has to date been largely confined to private settings because — like establishment Republicans in 2016 — Democrats are uneasy about elevating him or alienating his supporters.*
> 
> *The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.*
> 
> “He did us a disservice in the last election,” said Mr. Schwartz, a longtime Clinton supporter who said he would support former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in this primary.
> 
> But it is hardly only Mr. Sanders’s critics who believe the structure of this race could lead to a 50-state contest and require deal-cutting to determine a nominee before or at the convention.
> 
> “If I had to bet today, we’ll get to Milwaukee and not have a nominee,” said Ms. Daughtry, who was neutral in the 2016 primary.
> 
> The reason, she theorized, is simple: Super Tuesday, when at least 10 states vote, comes just three days after the last of four early states. After that, nearly 40 percent of the delegates will have been distributed — and, she suspects, carved up among candidates so that nobody can emerge with a majority.
> 
> Unlike Republicans, who used a winner-take-all primary format, Democrats use a proportional system, so candidates only need to garner 15 percent of the vote in a primary or caucus to pick up delegates. And even if a candidate fails to capture 15 percent statewide, he or she could still win delegates by meeting that vote threshold in individual congressional districts.
> 
> Should no bargain be struck by the time of the first roll call vote at the 2020 convention in Milwaukee — such as a unity ticket between a pair of the leading delegate-winners — the nomination battle would move to a second ballot. And under the new rules crafted after the 2016 race, that is when the party insiders and elected officials known as superdelegates would be able to cast a binding vote.
> 
> The specter of superdelegates deciding the nomination, particularly if Mr. Sanders is a finalist, is highly unappetizing to party officials.
> 
> “If we have a role, so be it, but I’d much prefer that it be decided in the first round, just from a unity standpoint,” said Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
> 
> That may not happen should Mr. Sanders, sustained by his online fund-raising network, remain in the primary but fail to win a majority of delegates after the last states vote in June.
> 
> Yet that result might not be fully realized until later in the primary calendar — well after Mr. Sanders has put his money to work.
> 
> “If he is consistently raising $6 million more than his next closest opponent, he’s going to have a massive financial advantage,” said Rufus Gifford, former President Barack Obama’s 2012 finance director, noting that Mr. Sanders would be able to blanket expensive and delegate-rich Super Tuesday states like California and Texas with ads during early voting there.
> 
> Mr. Gifford, who has gone public in recent days with his dismay over major Democratic fund-raisers remaining on the sidelines, said of Mr. Sanders, “I feel like everything we are doing is playing into his hands.”
> 
> But the peril of rallying the party’s elite donor class against a candidate whose entire public life has been organized around confronting concentrated wealth is self-evident: Mr. Sanders would gleefully seize on any Stop Bernie effort.
> 
> “You can see him reading the headlines now,” Mr. Brock mused: “‘Rich people don’t like me.’”


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html

that's some terrible company to hang with if you're trying to convince folk you're progressive.

yet again, it seems neoliberal trash would rather lose to trump than have an actual progressive in the white house. dems are their own worst enemy.


----------



## Miss Sally

DaRealNugget said:


> i'm not worried about beta o'dork. he'll fall off one of those tables he jumps on to give his stump speech and it'll be glorious. besides, pete butt is a better beto than beta.
> 
> but even pete butt is bad.
> 
> *‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html
> 
> that's some terrible company to hang with if you're trying to convince folk you're progressive.
> 
> yet again, it seems neoliberal trash would rather lose to trump than have an actual progressive in the white house. dems are their own worst enemy.


Beta is nothing more than a 4th generation Irish guy who was manufactured to be a Politician. His name makes me laugh because it's so larp worthy.

His financial backing is questionable at best, lots of his donations were from out of state people during his Texas run which is sketchy as fuck. 

It's like they took a fairly good looking man, made him watch House and were like, be a political version of that guy!

Beta doesn't even know what he stands for, it's pathetic. He's basically America's Trudeau, minus the cringe cultural appropriation! :laugh:

Yang, Bernie and Tulsi seem like the only legit people with any actual ideas who are willing to talk about them. Yang's been on FOX like 7 times. Bernie just went on. Buttie seems okay but he seems like a meme candidate to me. :shrug


----------



## DesolationRow

Miss Sally said:


> 5 churros says those signs were done mostly by whites with a few non-whites who were.. radicalized by whites. :laugh:
> 
> These people remind me of cheaters, closet cases and vehement anti-racists. They're so sure everyone else is the guilty but not them, no, no, not them because by virtue of saying they're not, means they're not even though the signs say otherwise. :x


This is not surprising, and is particularly timely as this poster was just reading an article by Matthew Yglesias about the "Great Awokening" of white liberals:

http://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18259865/great-awokening-white-liberals-race-polling-trump-2020 (full story with the link)



> The Great Awokening
> 
> A hidden shift is revolutionizing American racial politics — and could transform the future of the Democratic Party.
> 
> By Matthew [email protected]@vox.com Updated Apr 1, 2019,
> 
> 9:25am EDT
> 
> For all the attention paid to the politics of the far right in the Trump era, the biggest shift in American politics is happening somewhere else entirely.
> 
> In the past five years, white liberals have moved so far to the left on questions of race and racism that they are now, on these issues, to the left of even the typical black voter.
> 
> This change amounts to a “Great Awokening” — comparable in some ways to the enormous religious foment in the white North in the years before the American Civil War. It began roughly with the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, when activists took advantage of ubiquitous digital video and routine use of social media to expose a national audience in a visceral way to what otherwise might have been a routine local news story.


You should find that amusing.

You will never out-woke the whites! 

No one wants to be seen as so not-in-the-least-bit-ever-racist as whites! These whites will only become racist toward whites they are so not-in-the-least-bit-ever-racist!

The Enlightenment, so-called... Oh for St. Thomas Aquinas to return to this timeline.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Yang did an interview one on one with Ben Shapiro, and came off very impressive. I think he has more moderates excited than dems though... but it is still nice to see


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118111774077870081
I admire his restraint. :lol Hurray for gun ownership and not being disarmed by your government so you can protect your family, the way a man is supposed to. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118529619836264448
Love Salah.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118477984506232832
So she wants to be president while continuing to assert that a sitting member of the SCOTUS is a rapist, despite no corroboration or evidence to back up that allegation. Wonderful.


----------



## deepelemblues

Well, she did force the country to reckon with the use of uncorroborated allegations of sexual impropriety for the purpose of smearing people for political gain.

Christine Blasey-Ford, with her abject failure, did a great service in propping up the tottering pillars that support Western civilization, pillars like presumption of innocence, the necessity of evidence, etc.


----------



## Stephen90

DaRealNugget said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118317574301863936
> :lol is he really going to start turning on his own propaganda network?
> 
> kamala will be the establishment pick, but I think the only true threat to bernie will be the man himself.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115344669368619014
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115683670260625409
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114649105937178624
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116029842678538240
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116051647787098114
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116379216570986496
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116693701990940672
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116697476319207429
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116717613470683137


Trump turning on Fox News is fucking hilarious.


----------



## deepelemblues

Who the fuck are these people?

Oh, Mike Gravel is a "former" United States Senator

For being the world's most exclusive club, the current and past membership of the United States Senate really includes some nobody weirdos


----------



## CamillePunk

Ad hominem attacks don't make Mike Gravel any less correct about Assange. :draper2


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Ad hominem attacks don't make Mike Gravel any less correct about Assange. :draper2


Unfortunate that Mr. Gravel doesn't seem to share your opinion about the efficacy of the _ad hominem_ method the way he does regarding the sacredness of the cow from Down Under. An opinion not shared by the sacred cow Himself either, by all accounts 

Reassuring, though, to see that such differences of opinion need not necessarily result in schism, even in these most schismatic of times :trolldog


----------



## CamillePunk

I don't know what any of that meant. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118533887926337537
Moms and children. That's who should be deciding whether or not our constitutional rights are maintained.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> I don't know what any of that meant. :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118533887926337537
> Moms and children. That's who should be deciding whether or not our constitutional rights are maintained.


They're back to think of the children now?

When we listen to Moms and "Think of the children" types, we get prohibition, anti-vaxxers, censorship and David Hoggs being paid and reward for being paraded around.


----------



## virus21

Looks like Evans is an apostate now


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> Looks like Evans is an apostate now


There's only one side!

Also adding more politics to things is why we're in this mess. We make everything political to the point that people no longer want to even talk to each other. Cannot enjoy something without someone making it political. It's sad.


----------



## CamillePunk

If anyone really thinks Chris Evans is interested in an open-minded dialogue then I've got a Russian collusion narrative to sell you. :lol I like Tim Pool but he's easily one of the most naive political commentators on Youtube.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> I don't know what any of that meant. :lol


You're criticizing what I said because it insulted the man, when both he and Julian Assange, whom I described as a sacred cow in your eyes, have themselves heavily indulged in aiming vituperative insults at their political targets

But that doesn't make you break ranks with them and that is a good thing 

In that vein, don't worry, everything you laid out in your last PM that you never wrote or sent is being carried out to the letter on my end. Look for my next PM that I will never write or send on XX/XX. The crow flies at midnight :nod


----------



## CamillePunk

I don't think not wanting someone in prison for acts of journalism means I view them as a sacred cow.


----------



## El Grappleador

Hey guys, I got notice of my province.

During last presidential period, Enrique Pena Nieto made official 911 as an emergency line. Unfortunately, pranksters play with this service, and here are the consequences: 9 years on prison who make pranks on 911. I know an emergency call is not game. Although, is it not a too stiff measure?


----------



## CamillePunk

Depends on the kind of prank.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Pretty sure you are taking that out of context. Where did you see that? I have heard Sanders say no CEO should earn more than 1000 times its employees.


and that's just to you?

why does it matter? if someone is super successful, why does it matter how much their entry level employees are making?

bernie sanders said he made a good chunk of his income because he had a best selling book. he sold around 227 thousand copies, but let's say hypothetically he had sold 227 *million* copies. let's say it was the greatest book in history and everyone rushed out to buy it. you're telling me bernie is obligated to share that fortune with his secretary? 

i know you will probably resort to ad hominem attacks or flat out ignore this post altogether. i know you can't answer these questions based on your belief system. just wanted to hold a mirror up to your hypocrisy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> and that's just to you?
> 
> why does it matter? if someone is super successful, why does it matter how much their entry level employees are making?
> 
> bernie sanders said he made a good chunk of his income because he had a best selling book. he sold around 227 thousand copies, but let's say hypothetically he had sold 227 *million* copies. let's say it was the greatest book in history and everyone rushed out to buy it. you're telling me bernie is obligated to share that fortune with his secretary?
> 
> i know you will probably resort to ad hominem attacks or flat out ignore this post altogether. i know you can't answer these questions based on your belief system. just wanted to hold a mirror up to your hypocrisy.


Bernie does not have any employees He is not a company nor a CEO. So your point does not even make any sense.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie does not have any employees He is not a company nor a CEO. So your point does not even make any sense.


okay so fine forget bernie.

explain why a CEO making 1000x more than their entry level employees is unfair and unjust.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> okay so fine forget bernie.
> 
> explain why a CEO making 1000x more than their entry level employees is unfair and unjust.


We have already been over this, not doing it agian'
I am done wasting my time with your trolling BS


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Let's Talk About Politics! The Official Political Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> We have already been over this, not doing it agian'
> I am done wasting my time with your trolling BS


you already responded to me, it's too late to pretend you have no interest in engaging.

you won't explain why it's unjust because you can't without sounding jealous and irrational.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Watched the hour long discussion between Ben Shapiro and Andrew Yang. Highly enjoyable. That's what politics should look like. Two men on opposite sides finding common ground on a lot of issues and keeping attacks out of it. I gained a lot of respect for Yang. He's clearly a very bright man.


----------



## Miss Sally

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Watched the hour long discussion between Ben Shapiro and Andrew Yang. Highly enjoyable. That's what politics should look like. Two men on opposite sides finding common ground on a lot of issues and keeping attacks out of it. I gained a lot of respect for Yang. He's clearly a very bright man.


Yang debated him well, it was nice not seeing the "That debater is dishonest" card being pulled like AOC did anytime anyone wanted to discuss her policies.


----------



## CamillePunk

Don't think Yang handled many of Ben's counter-points too well. I'm more skeptical UBI is needed or would be beneficial now than I was going into the interview. Yang's defense of single-payer healthcare was also rather poor given he essentially agreed that a more libertarian approach to healthcare would also solve the major issues. That should obviously be preferable for anyone who is familiar with the effectiveness of government programs and institutions.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Don't think Yang handled many of Ben's counter-points too well. I'm more skeptical UBI is needed or would be beneficial now than I was going into the interview. Yang's defense of single-payer healthcare was also rather poor given he essentially agreed that a more libertarian approach to healthcare would also solve the major issues. That should obviously be preferable for anyone who is familiar with the effectiveness of government programs and institutions.


My questions on UBI and Universal HC are what's to stop companies from just leaving when the cost is too great? 

If we abolish ICE and don't have improved border security, what's to stop amnesty every 5 years compounding the cost of the programs by billions?

Working in Health Care how do we stop people from abusing the system? How do we stop companies from fleecing the Government for more money? Last night we had so many people with non-emergent issues come in simply because they don't want to wait in lines at clinics or because they're not going to pay anyways. Was such a waste of time.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yea let's tax everyone that earns a living and have them subsidize the people that don't want to work.

that should end well.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/gop-congressman-climbs-border-wall-doesn-t-actually-make-it-n996566



> *GOP congressman climbs 'border' wall, doesn't actually make it to Mexico*
> 
> GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter is facing backlash for pretending to cross the U.S.-Mexico border — something his Democratic opponent says would have violated the terms of the congressman's parole stemming from federal charges of misusing campaign funds.
> 
> The California lawmaker posted a video on social media on Thursday claiming to be "15 meters" from the U.S.-Mexico border before walking over to a fence he alleged was the only thing separating migrants seeking asylum from entering the U.S. by foot.
> 
> “It looks pretty tough to cross. Let me see if I can do it,” Hunter said in the video, before hopping over the waist-high fence, which serves as a vehicle barrier. “That’s how easy it is to cross the border here in Yuma, Arizona.”
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118944290816831489But his suggestion was quickly debunked.
> 
> Border Patrol officials told The Times of San Diego that the official border is the Colorado River, which is further away from the vehicle barrier Hunter crossed.
> 
> “What [Hunter] crossed was a vehicle barrier,” said Border Patrol spokesman Vincent Dulesky told the paper, who helped lead a tour Wednesday night for members of Congress at the border. "That is approximately 75-100 feet from the border — the border is actually the river that’s west of that."
> 
> Ammar Campa-Najjar, a Democrat who unsuccessfully challenged Hunter for his seat last November, slammed Hunter for the video on social media. "This is what happens when you’ve been stripped from all your committees & have too much time on your hands," he tweeted.
> 
> Campa-Najjar, who has already filed to run against Hunter again in 2020, told NBC News in a statement Friday that the congressman was lucky he didn't actually cross the border and violate his parole.
> 
> “Congressman Hunter said on video that he was 15 meters from Mexico, then proceeded to walk over to the border in what appeared to be, by his own admission, crossing into Mexico," he said. "Hunter either broke the law and violated conditions of his release issued by a judge not to leave continental U.S., or he was pulling a political stunt and lied."
> 
> Hunter and his wife, Margaret E. Hunter, were hit last August with federal charges that they "converted and stole" more than a quarter million dollars in campaign funds, according to a 47-page grand jury indictment. Duncan Hunter released on $15,000 bond. Margaret Hunter was released on $10,000 bond. They are awaiting trial. The couple was ordered not to travel outside of the U.S.
> 
> Campa-Najjar added, "Thankfully for Hunter, he did not cross into Mexico as he claims. Can someone please show Hunter a map? He was the one who falsely advertised he was 15 meters from Mexico."
> 
> Michael Harrison, a spokesman for Hunter, told The Times of San Diego that the accusation of him violating his parole by leaving the U.S. is a "non-issue typical of someone desperate for a headline as opposed to focusing on the real issue" of border security.
> 
> “I would encourage others to look and review a map, spend time with the Border Patrol and understand what structures are in place and where they are with regards to the international border,” Harrison added.
> 
> A representative for Hunter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


----------



## Stephen90

Love how CNN gives Booker,Harris and Biden softball questions. But tries to frame Yang as some white supremacist sympathizer. The amount of dislikes is great.


----------



## virus21

> The UK remains one of the worst counties in western Europe for freedom of the press, according to the latest report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
> 
> Ranked 33rd in the list of 180 countries, Britain was placed behind Jamaica, Surinam, Ghana, Namibia, South Africa, Latvia and Lichtenstein in the advocacy group’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index.
> 
> Foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt appointed Amal Clooney as special envoy on media freedom earlier this month as part of a global campaign on reporting restrictions. Yet the UK is ranked lower than any of its western European neighbours except Italy.
> 
> “We should hold ourselves to a higher standard, and seek to be one of the best, not worst-performing countries in western Europe,” said RSF’s UK director Rebecca Vincent. “Too often steps taken in the name of national security trample press freedom.”
> 
> The US slipped three places to 48th in the world as a result of its increasingly hostile climate towards journalists. The report said that never before have US reporters been subjected to so many death threats or turned so often to private security for protection.
> 
> Winners of the World Press Photo 2019 awards
> Show all 25
> World Press Photo of the Year 2019: Crying girl on the border
> General News Photo of the year: The disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi
> Nature Photo of the Year: Survival instinct
> Sports Photo of the Year: Boxing in Katanga
> The latest annual report offered a bleak assessment of reporting freedoms around the world, with experts finding a decline in the number of countries regarded as safe for journalists.
> 
> Only 24 per cent of the 180 countries were classified as “good” or “fairly good” for the press – a two per cent decline – while over three-quarters of the world is now considered “problematic”, “difficult” or “very serious” for media freedoms.
> 
> RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said: “Democracy is in great danger. Halting this cycle of fear and intimidation is a matter of the utmost urgency of all people.”
> 
> He added: “If the political debate slides surreptitiously or openly towards a civil war-style atmosphere, in which journalists are treated as scapegoats, then democracy is in great danger.”
> 
> 
> Barrage of hostility against media at Trump rally
> Norway is ranked first for press freedoms for the third consecutive year and Turkmenistan replaced North Korea in last place.
> 
> The study’s authors said the level of violence used in some parts of the world to persecute journalists who aggravate authorities “no longer seems to know any limits”. They said the Saudi columnist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last October sent a “chilling message”.
> 
> The Americas saw the greatest deterioration of any part of the world during the last year. Nicaragua fell 24 places from the previous year’s list due to attacks on journalists covering protests against President Daniel Ortega.
> 
> Watch more
> 
> Democracy undergoing 'alarming' decline around the world, study finds
> El Salvador saw the region’s second steepest fall – 15 places – because journalists suffered armed attacks, harassment and intimidation by politicians, according to the report.
> 
> There were also poor performances in Venezuela, Brazil and Mexico. The latter is one of the world’s deadliest countries for the media, with at least 10 journalists killed in 2018.
> 
> The EU and Balkans registered the second biggest deterioration in press freedoms, but it remains the region where press freedom is respected most and which is the safest for journalists.
> 
> 
> According to a separate report recently published by RSF, 80 journalists were killed around the world in 2018, up from 65 in 2017.
> 
> The group’s annual index assesses six separate benchmarks and assigns each country a score calculated from answers to a questionnaire in 20 languages that is completed by international experts.
> 
> Earlier this year a report by the Freedom House think tank found an “alarming” decline in democracy across the world, as a growing number of countries move towards authoritarian rule.
> 
> Its report found 2018 was the 13th consecutive year of deteriorating political freedoms around the globe.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/press-freedom-index-uk-ranking-reporters-without-borders-us-italy-a8875771.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Just another day on Airstrip One


----------



## Miss Sally

Stephen90 said:


> Love how CNN gives Booker,Harris and Biden softball questions. But tries to frame Yang as some white supremacist sympathizer. The amount of dislikes is great.


Because Yang isn't on board the Identity Politics train, it's hard for some people to grasp that maybe some people just want to make things better for everyone without some weird agenda.


----------



## ShiningStar

Berzerker's Beard said:


> yea let's tax everyone that earns a living and have them subsidize the people that don't want to work.
> 
> that should end well.


We are already doing that bigly with the Walton Heir's. Taxpayers pay low level Walmart employees healthcare and foodstamp benefits and the Walton family pocket the rest instead of paying their employees.


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> Because Yang isn't on board the Identity Politics train, it's hard for some people to grasp that maybe some people just want to make things better for everyone without some weird agenda.


He is on board for giving citizenship to everyone here illegally though. So yeah, if he's not socialist enough for you, don't worry, because if he wins then real socialism won't be far behind.


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> He is on board for giving citizenship to everyone here illegally though. So yeah, if he's not socialist enough for you, don't worry, because if he wins then real socialism won't be far behind.


If Yang or any other Democrat win's they will most likely still be dealing with a GOP Senate. Not to mention Joe Manchin and the like ain't ever gonna support something like the GND. At best a Dem winning in 2020 would be able to move the Overton window slightly more left and prevent the SC from being a defacto wing of the GOP over the next half century.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> He is on board for giving citizenship to everyone here illegally though. So yeah, if he's not socialist enough for you, don't worry, because if he wins then real socialism won't be far behind.


Yeah that's one thing I cannot agree with. I'd prefer it being the option to become a citizen and renounce old citizenship and the rest can go back if that's not for them.

You cannot have basic income and universal health care with open borders, especially our nation since our location. Else we'll just get amnesty every few years with more money going out and an increasing population that cannot work.


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> Yeah that's one thing I cannot agree with. *I'd prefer it being the option to become a citizen* and renounce old citizenship and the rest can go back if that's not for them.


Okay so you want a policy where we'd end up with socialism anyway. :lol Good to know.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Okay so you want a policy where we'd end up with socialism anyway. :lol Good to know.


Not so much but if they been here long enough and can pass the test and are already working a stable job, their kids are not getting into trouble then these types of people should be allowed to stay. We certainly need more hardworking people over the increasing number of parasites that want everything free.

I'm also hoping this Mexican troops disarming troops on OUR side of the border gets taken care of, that should not be happening.


----------



## Draykorinee

Just admit you want to be like Venezuela Sally, that's what Cam wants to hear.


----------



## DesolationRow

The U.S. border with Mexico is in such dire straits Mexican soldiers are disarming American troops on the nominal U.S. side of it. :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> The U.S. border with Mexico is in such dire straits Mexican soldiers are disarming American troops on the nominal U.S. side of it. :lmao


American soldiers being disarmed on the US side of the border by Mexican troops, Cartels buying Politicians, intimidating Police and killing US Citizens, US cowing to Mexican Politicians on border policies, Mexico pumping up their economy with drug money and money sent back to Mexico via the US...

I have no idea how the US Government has any sway over anyone else when our neighbor pisses and shits on our lawn and the US Government does absolutely nothing. :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

If Mexico are paying for the wall they have every right to have some say in border control...


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> If Mexico are paying for the wall they have every right to have some say in border control...


Their troops have NO right to disarm our troops on our side of the border. Also These issues were a problem before the wall was being discussed.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Mexico are paying for the wall they have every right to have some say in border control...
> 
> 
> 
> Their troops have NO right to disarm our troops on our side of the border. Also These issues were a problem before the wall was being discussed.
Click to expand...

I was joking thought that was obvious seeing as Mexico aren't paying for the wall like trump promised.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> I was joking thought that was obvious seeing as Mexico aren't paying for the wall like trump promised.


I thought so but couldn't be sure or not :laugh:


----------



## virus21

This song feels apt


----------



## virus21

So another person has entered the 2020 race for the democrats.


> Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a third-term congressman who has pushed for a “new generation of leadership” in Washington, declared his candidacy for president on Monday, becoming the 19th candidate to enter the Democratic primary field.
> 
> “I’m running because I’m a patriot, because I believe in this country and because I’ve never wanted to sit on the sidelines when it comes to serving it,” Mr. Moulton said Monday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
> 
> Mr. Moulton, 40, garnered attention in November when he helped lead a group of rebellious Democrats who had sought to deny Speaker Nancy Pelosi the gavel in the new Congress. The effort was unsuccessful, and Mr. Moulton ultimately voted for Ms. Pelosi. His online biography paints him as something of a disrupter, noting that he was “the only Democrat to unseat an incumbent in a primary” in the House of Representatives when he was first elected in 2014.
> 
> Mr. Moulton, a Harvard-educated Marine veteran, has also focused on recruiting veterans to run for Congress as Democrats, including a handful who campaigned and won in 2018 promising not to back Ms. Pelosi.
> 
> [Learn where Seth Moulton stands on foreign policy, the environment and more.]
> 
> “We need to restore our moral authority in everything we do. Whether it’s appointing a Cabinet member, negotiating a treaty or signing an executive order, I will always uphold America’s values,” he said in a video announcing his campaign.
> 
> “I’m running because we have to beat Donald Trump. And I want us to beat Donald Trump because I love this country.”
> 
> During his time in Congress, Mr. Moulton, who represents a district in northeastern Massachusetts, has passed bills aimed at improving the way health care is delivered to veterans and making government travel more efficient. Given his background as a veteran, his campaign is likely to concentrate on national security and foreign affairs — areas that have received relatively scant attention from other candidates, who have focused more heavily on domestic issues such as health care and the economy.
> 
> By focusing on his military service and his relative youth, Mr. Moulton will seek to draw a contrast to President Trump, who is 72 and received several draft deferments during Vietnam.
> 
> “I’m going to talk about patriotism, about security, about service,” he said Monday. “These are issues that for too long Democrats have ceded to Republicans, and we’ve got to stop that. Because this is actually where Donald Trump is weakest. We’ve got to take him on on these issues.”
> 
> Editors’ Picks
> 
> Don’t Call It Tex-Mex
> 
> ‘Will You Stay With Me Until I Die?’
> 
> With the Birth of My Son, I Stopped Hiding
> Mr. Moulton also has released a plan that outlines a series of changes to the nation's elections, including automatic voter registration and making Election Day a national holiday. And he has argued for abolishing the filibuster and the Electoral College.
> 
> But with so many candidates in the race, Mr. Moulton faces a steep uphill climb to the nomination. He is one of four sitting members of the House of Representatives who is running for president; all are seeking to become the first person to be elected president from a seat in the House since James Garfield in 1880.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/us/politics/seth-moulton-2020.html


----------



## Strike Force

virus21 said:


> So another person has entered the 2020 race for the democrats.


I follow politics pretty damn closely, and even I can no longer keep track of the Democratic field.

I do wonder whether running and failing to win the Dem. nomination is a net gain or loss for these young politicians. Sure, they gain mainstream notoriety and name recognition and have a platform to share their policy beliefs, but they also emerge with the stank that comes with "losing", fair or unfair.


----------



## ShiningStar

Strike Force said:


> I follow politics pretty damn closely, and even I can no longer keep track of the Democratic field.
> 
> I do wonder whether running and failing to win the Dem. nomination is a net gain or loss for these young politicians. Sure, they gain mainstream notoriety and name recognition and have a platform to share their policy beliefs, but they also emerge with the stank that comes with "losing", fair or unfair.



Reagan lost to Ford in 76,Bush Sr lost 2 senate races and a WH bid before becoming VP and President. Bill Clinton did bad when he ran for President in 88 and even lost one of his Gov elections before. Obama lost in a bid for a house seat before running for Senator and President. Losing can often humaninze people,and also if the candidate from their party loses in the GE they can always frame it as they would have done better in GE.


Worst case scenario for a lot of these candidates if it taints their chances in a future Senate or House race,they just leverage their notoriety into cushy cable news gigs or being part of an admin the next time their party wins the WH. Way more upside for all these candidates then potential downside.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

bernie sanders lost his shot at being the nominee last night






:lol :lol :lol


to be fair warren and harris also performed terrible on this question but bernie seems to be getting the most heat because he failed to pivot and was forced to give a more direct response. 

a crazy, delusional response... but direct nonetheless.

:lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Really stupid hill to die on.


----------



## deepelemblues

2020 is going to be _choice_

I think any and all future BernieOld comments by myself are going to consist solely of the Curb theme song


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Berzerker's Beard said:


> bernie sanders lost his shot at being the nominee last night
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol :lol :lol
> 
> 
> to be fair warren and harris also performed terrible on this question but bernie seems to be getting the most heat because he failed to pivot and was forced to give a more direct response.
> 
> a crazy, delusional response... but direct nonetheless.
> 
> :lol


If he was being truly direct he would have admitted that the only reason the Dems want to give criminals the vote is because they would give a significant boost to Democrat support, particularly in states like Florida. How could a imprisoned felon make an informed decision on who to vote for? Just shows how shallow and transparent this policy is.

If a person commits a crime against civil society, they then forfeit their civil rights. It is part of the punishment and something which has been in effect since the beginnings of Greek democracy. There is no constitutional argument either, the 14th Amendment clearly states in section 2:


> Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, *or other crime*, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


It is therefore totally in accordance with the constitution to disenfranchise criminals for the duration of their imprisonment (and perhaps after too.) 

If criminals want to vote, then they shouldn't commit a crime, in the exact same sense that if they don't want to be imprisoned, then they shouldn't commit a crime. It's that simple, it is part of the punishment.


----------



## Strike Force

ShiningStar said:


> Reagan lost to Ford in 76,Bush Sr lost 2 senate races and a WH bid before becoming VP and President. Bill Clinton did bad when he ran for President in 88 and even lost one of his Gov elections before. Obama lost in a bid for a house seat before running for Senator and President. Losing can often humaninze people,and also if the candidate from their party loses in the GE they can always frame it as they would have done better in GE.
> 
> 
> Worst case scenario for a lot of these candidates if it taints their chances in a future Senate or House race,they just leverage their notoriety into cushy cable news gigs or being part of an admin the next time their party wins the WH. Way more upside for all these candidates then potential downside.


Oh, of course, _many_ have suffered defeat and then risen like a phoenix. I should have been more clear when wondering about whether these candidates are tainted by failing to receive the nomination: I was thinking specifically about contemporary 24-hour news cycle + social media culture, where failing at any venture could stick you with the _*LOSER*_ tag. 

It's all so new that it's difficult to say, and you're right that they can cash in through various avenues, but as far as rising to the presidency , I still wonder.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121025866501279744
God damn, this was straight FIRE. :mark:


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121187060386189312Eek, not a good look, Bernie!


----------



## Twilight Sky

Biden is running for President. Cue 20 women that will come out of hiding.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121187060386189312Eek, not a good look, Bernie!


Did he show ANY support for authoritarian communism? No, he said there were nice parks and nice chandeliers.

The Nazis built some fucking good roads and cut crime.

Therefore I support Nazis.

The lengths peeople will go to.

Her father ran away from universal healthcare and free universities? What a dumb cunt and what a dumb question. Thanks for sharing, its clear the stupidity of the anti-social democracy crowd continues unabashedly.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121025866501279744
> God damn, this was straight FIRE. :mark:


Saudis also rejected helping the Syrian migrants because of "ideological differences" but offered millions to build mosques in Europe. They've been busted funding extremist housing mosques in Europe along with hate preachers. FFS most of the hijackers from 9/11 were Saudis. :laugh:

If anything we should be helping Yemen bomb Saudi Arabia. >


----------



## Stinger Fan

Draykorinee said:


> Did he show ANY support for authoritarian communism? No, he said there were nice parks and nice chandeliers.
> 
> The Nazis built some fucking good roads and cut crime.
> 
> Therefore I support Nazis.
> 
> The lengths peeople will go to.
> 
> Her father ran away from universal healthcare and free universities? What a dumb cunt and what a dumb question. Thanks for sharing, its clear the stupidity of the anti-social democracy crowd continues unabashedly.


I assume her father ran away from mass starvation, mass murder, religious persecution etc etc, you know... whats very common under communist and socialist regimes. Bernie praising or at the very least, soft on communists dictatorships is very well documented. This is the same guy who called Trump an authoritarian but refused to call Maduro, a dictator. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098633261356630016

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098034970856181760

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098449288806440960

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098073499279740928


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121385145758412800
People will never stop lying about Trump's Charlottesville comments, will they? :lol He said nothing wrong or even remotely in support of white nationalists at all.


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he show ANY support for authoritarian communism? No, he said there were nice parks and nice chandeliers.
> 
> The Nazis built some fucking good roads and cut crime.
> 
> Therefore I support Nazis.
> 
> The lengths peeople will go to.
> 
> Her father ran away from universal healthcare and free universities? What a dumb cunt and what a dumb question. Thanks for sharing, its clear the stupidity of the anti-social democracy crowd continues unabashedly.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume her father ran away from mass starvation, mass murder, religious persecution etc etc, you know... whats very common under communist and socialist regimes. Bernie praising or at the very least, soft on communists dictatorships is very well documented. This is the same guy who called Trump an authoritarian but refused to call Maduro, a dictator.
Click to expand...

So what policies is Bernie putting in place that her father ran away from?

Not that it matters, we live in a time where liking Russian chandeliers is supporting communism.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121462365017399301
Air conditioners on, people. We can do this! :mark:


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121385145758412800
> People will never stop lying about Trump's Charlottesville comments, will they? :lol He said nothing wrong or even remotely in support of white nationalists at all.


LOL yes he did but keep ignoring Trumps own words


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL yes he did but keep ignoring Trumps own words


Glad you decided to look at my post, BM. Wish you had read the image I shared since it literally shows Trump's words and they debunk the hoax (one of many) that you and others have been pushing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Glad you decided to look at my post, BM. Wish you had read the image I shared since it literally shows Trump's words and they debunk the hoax (one of many) that you and others have been pushing.


I'm forced to look at your ship posting because of quotes.

But good to see your gimmick still has not changed.

And no nothing was debunked since you can just listen to what Trump said.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> I'm forced to look at your ship posting because of quotes.
> 
> But good to see your gimmick still has not changed.
> 
> And no nothing was debunked since you can just listen to what Trump said.


Nobody but you quoted that post though. :lol

Never change.


----------



## Miss Sally

If the clip is accurate that I seen then Bernie impressed me.

He said open borders was a right Wing policy, bringing in cheap labor to depress wages. Lot's of us have been saying this for a while but Bernie saying it was surprising.

The was a railroad gun shot at Republicans and Establishment Democrats who love cheap slave labor and who couldn't give a rat's ass about Americans.

Bernie also worded it in a way that didn't sound racist and actually attacking him on it would cause way more harm than good, bravo, color me impressed!


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121436947132579845
Biden will not be the nominee. :lol As I've said all along.


----------



## DOPA

Miss Sally said:


> If the clip is accurate that I seen then Bernie impressed me.
> 
> He said open borders was a right Wing policy, bringing in cheap labor to depress wages. Lot's of us have been saying this for a while but Bernie saying it was surprising.
> 
> The was a railroad gun shot at Republicans and Establishment Democrats who love cheap slave labor and who couldn't give a rat's ass about Americans.
> 
> Bernie also worded it in a way that didn't sound racist and actually attacking him on it would cause way more harm than good, bravo, color me impressed!


Need to see the Bernie clip but I know he's not as extreme on the mass illegal immigration as someone like AOC is.

Traditionally Libertarians have been for open borders due to their obsession with free market economics and whilst obviously I believe a market economy is far superior to a planned one, the devastating effects of the European Migrant Crisis as well as the negative impacts of mass immigration here in the UK basically was the beginning of me completely turning away from Libertarianism as an ideology. Some of them are just as utopian and idealistic as socialists/communists and open border progressives.



Miss Sally said:


> My questions on UBI and Universal HC are what's to stop companies from just leaving when the cost is too great?


Universal healthcare can definitely be achieved in a way won't stop companies from leaving the country. You have to also remember that it is very much beneficial for companies to offer healthcare as an incentive in order to attract people to work for them. The problem is whilst Obamacare did cover 20+ million more people like Democrat loyalists like to proclaim, it also increased healthcare costs for the rest of the country particular when it came to premiums. This being for two main reasons:

* The individual mandates which forced companies to have a certain amount of provisions in their healthcare packages which ramped up the costs for people who were already secure with health insurance that they were happy with. Essentially outlawing inexpensive/catastrophic insurance was the worst thing you could do (other than my next point) in a healthcare market without universal coverage.

One of the reasons why Singapore has one of the best healthcare systems in the entire world is that they offer catastrophic health insurance covering the most severe level of care whether long term or in an accident type situation essentially treating insurance as a last resort much akin to car insurance. Because of that health insurance there is dirt cheap. From there, instead of having the insurance companies as the middle man they basically said fuck that and cut it out completely so that service/care is strictly between patients and the doctors.

* Having pre-existent conditions covered in a non-universal healthcare system. This has had devastating effects on the insurance market where smaller and medium sized insurance companies have essentially been forced out of business so that larger more corporate companies rake in the profits and thus more share of the healthcare market. More importantly, insurance companies have had to raise costs of healthy people in order to try and cover the costs of insuring those who are sick which costs a lot of money. And considering the fact that if you were younger than 26 you could stay on your parents insurance and the fact the penalties were often cheaper than getting insurance, it made more sense for younger healthier people to just not get insurance at all. This is why Obamacare has been such a huge problem.

This is why for example in Holland which has a universal healthcare system but is fully privatized, the costs for patients are on average three times lower than in the united states. The best way to solve the US healthcare problem in my opinion is to base reforms off of a system like in Switzerland for example which has universal healthcare in a three tier system so the poorest and those who are already sick can be covered either partially or completely by the state (you could even implement a means tested system like in Singapore based off monthly income) whilst the rest have access and options for further healthcare coverage and insurance.

In my ideal world here in the UK, we'd move to a system similar to what they have in Singapore as it would be the easiest to transition to. Nationalized healthcare is a terrible idea and single payer isn't much better for countries with larger populations. They work well for Scandinivian countries because most of them have smaller populations at around 5-6 million....but even Sweden has had some challenges and problems since their population has increased to around 9 million people.

The silly thing is in world terms I have a pretty centrist, maybe center right at best view on healthcare but in the UK I'd be considered far right and in the US I'd be considered progressive. Pretty fucking mad to be honest :lol.



Miss Sally said:


> If we abolish ICE and don't have improved border security, what's to stop amnesty every 5 years compounding the cost of the programs by billions?


Amnesty on it's own has historically never worked. Reagan's one time Amnesty back in the mid 80's ended up making the problem worse as it encouraged more illegals to take the risk and cross the border because they knew the chances are that a moderate republican or a democrat could give them a path to citizenship at some stage.

The only way you can feasibly give amnesty to those already in the US is if you have comprehensive reforms to the immigration system which prioritizes legal immigration over illegal. But the Democrats have made it clear they want a clean DACA bill with no immigration reform beyond either a few billion towards the wall which as an idea, the wall isn't going to fucking work for christ's sake :lol or a pittance towards border security. So nothing is going to change.

The Democrats are using this as a political football anyway, they do not give a flying fuck about the illegal immigrants. Case in point: there many democrats and democrat supporting celebrities who were insistent that illegal immigrants were welcome in the US and we're encouraging them to use sanctuary cities as safe havens.

Trump in perhaps his most brilliant political move to date, decided to flirt with the idea of allowing the migrant caravans into the US provided they stayed in the sanctuary cities seeing as that they were encouraging more immigrants to come there anyway. The very same people who were for illegal immigration and for sanctuary cities literally turned on a dime and came out against Trump's new idea for more illegals from the caravans to migrate to the sanctuary cities.....even though months prior they said that they were welcome and that they wanted more! :lol.

This isn't about a principled stance for open borders for some Democrats and celebrities, it's about opposing Trump at all costs.

-----------------------------------------------


Tulsi as well as principled opposition to Saudi Arabian funded and encouraged terrorism dared to buck party orthodoxy and stated that Trump being found to not be in collusion with Russia is good thing. So there's no way the DNC will nominate her. She continues to prove she's most principled candidate from the left which will unfortunately hurt her chances in a party that is determined to engage in conspiratorial nonsense rather than learn from the reasons why they lost in 2016 to begin with.

In regards to Bernie: I've always had a question whether what he is espousing as his political beliefs are truly what he stands for or whether or not he is engaging in incrementalism and that he's only pushing forward what he believes is popular and can get him elected.....basically doing what Jeremy Corbyn is undoubtedly doing here in the UK (and people call him a different kind of politician....fucking lol :lmao.).

It's pretty clear to me judging from the clips shown in this thread from having excitement about the Cuban revolution to essentially giving advice to the Ortega government in Nicaragua on how to use the media to put out communist propaganda that at one point he did used to support these kinds of regimes. The question is whether he still does and he's just been smarter in recent years hiding it or whether he evolved and realized that they were horrific.

I think it's possible he changed because the clips shown are very old one's from the 80's which was quite early on in his political career. But clearly he lied to the young woman in the town hall about supporting those type of regimes and for good reason as he does not want to alienate people who aren't already on the Bernie train and part of his base. He wants the support of more moderate Democrats too so he can't be too honest about his past. I get it.


----------



## CamillePunk

Nate Silver putting in work today to ensure that whoever wins the Democratic nomination between the progressives and neoliberals, they will almost certainly not have the support of the other wing of the party. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121387737880379392

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121400808342478849

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121437704410025984

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121439841403768839

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121545978815885313
SO. MANY. BAD. TAKES. Nate Silver is the kind of guy who is wrong about everything, learns nothing from it, and then keeps saying the same kind of stupid shit he was wrong about before. :lol

Kyle Kulinski with a great tweet on this: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121557361439707137


----------



## Draykorinee

Deadhead said:


> The silly thing is in world terms I have a pretty centrist, maybe center right at best view on healthcare but in the UK I'd be considered far right and in the US I'd be considered progressive. Pretty fucking mad to be honest :lol.


Definitely on the right in the UK.



> But clearly he lied to the young woman in the town hall about supporting those type of regimes


:eyeroll2

If you can watch those videos and come this, I really don't know what to say. The question was dumb, the answer was correct.


----------



## virus21

Stinger Fan said:


> I assume her father ran away from mass starvation, mass murder, religious persecution etc etc, you know... whats very common under communist and socialist regimes. Bernie praising or at the very least, soft on communists dictatorships is very well documented. This is the same guy who called Trump an authoritarian but refused to call Maduro, a dictator.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098633261356630016
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098034970856181760
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098449288806440960
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098073499279740928









CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121462365017399301
> Air conditioners on, people. We can do this! :mark:


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121777734651244544
"Interestingly this happened during a quarter where for most of it the government was shut down." 

:heston


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121836632796221446
He actually acknowledged political Islam. :faint: Tells you how bad it is over there.


----------



## deepelemblues

Miss Sally said:


> If anything we should be helping Yemen bomb Saudi Arabia. >


How do you know we aren't helping the Houthis and their Iranian backers fight the Yemeni government and its Saudi backers


----------



## DOPA

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121836632796221446
> He actually acknowledged political Islam. :faint: Tells you how bad it is over there.


Lip service. He can see Front National and Le Penn gaining popularity over time. The Yellow Vest protests have especially hurt his image.

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Stephen90

CNN again fails to smear Bernie.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> CNN again fails to smear Bernie.


Sadly the smears still work.

I went out to dinner last night with my parents and some of my aunts and uncle, and they were all shit talking Bernie Sanders basically spewing the Fox News gotcha lines like about how Bernie thinks the boston marathon bomber should be able to vote, and they all called him crazy and said they would never vote for him.

They are all over 70, and sadly this type of smearing works because they just read headlines and not the actual context. They were also shit talking people like AOC, Warren and Omar.

And this is in a progressive state like MA. All this smearing is going to add up and fuck over Bernie again


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Sadly the smears still work.
> 
> I went out to dinner last night with my parents and some of my aunts and uncle, and they were all shit talking Bernie Sanders basically spewing the Fox News gotcha lines like about how *Bernie thinks the boston marathon bomber should be able to vote*, and they all called him crazy and said they would never vote for him.
> 
> They are all over 70, and sadly this type of smearing works because *they just read headlines and not the actual context*. They were also shit talking people like AOC, Warren and Omar.
> 
> And this is in a progressive state like MA. All this smearing is going to add up and fuck over Bernie again


bernie said exactly that, what are you talking about?

he said the right to vote should not be taken away from anyone, even terrible people in jail. that extends to the bomber, other terrorists... as well as rapists and murderers.

are you denying what he said? in what 'context' is this not crazy?


----------



## Miss Sally

Stephen90 said:


> CNN again fails to smear Bernie.


Impossible, I was told CNN doesn't lie as much as FOX yet FOX gave Bernie a fair shake to come on their network so surely something is amiss if CNN is giving Bernie a bad rap! :laugh:


So it appears India is buying up gold, China is trying to shift from the dollar. Will the US invade everyone like they did Libya to prop up that petrol dollar?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> bernie said exactly that, what are you talking about?
> 
> *he said the right to vote should not be taken away from anyone, even terrible people in jail.* that extends to the bomber, other terrorists... as well as rapists and murderers.
> 
> are you denying what he said? in what 'context' is this not crazy?


You just answered your own question with the full context. 

the news framed it as OMG Bernie said the boston bomber should be able to vote instead of what Bernie said was he thinks everyone in jail should be able to vote which is the context Bernie used.

bernie even said they were going to frame this to smear him and of course they did.

There is a reason why there is never quotes around " I think the boston bomber should be able to vote" or a sound clip of it, because he never said that directly. He said everyone in jail should be able to vote even bad people. 

But the way the news is framing it, is Bernie said that directly which he did not.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> You just answered your own question with the full context.
> 
> the news framed it as OMG Bernie said the boston bomber should be able to vote instead of what *Bernie said was he thinks everyone in jail should be able to vote which is the context Bernie used.*
> 
> bernie even said they were going to frame this to smear him and of course they did.
> 
> There is a reason why there is never quotes around " I think the boston bomber should be able to vote" or a sound clip of it, because he never said that directly. He said everyone in jail should be able to vote even bad people.
> 
> But the way the news is framing it, is Bernie said that directly which he did not.


and that extends to the boston bomber, other terrorists, rapists and murderers.

correct?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> and that extends to the boston bomber, other terrorists, rapists and murderers.
> 
> correct?




You just admitted Bernie never directly said the boston bomber should be able to vote but that is what the media is quoting him saying.

Why isnt the media just saying Bernie thinks everyone in jail should be able to vote even terrible people.

Those were his actual words not that the bomber should be able to vote

They did it to smear him because the town hall was in NH and the bombing happened in Boston.

You dont see them doing this BS framing with establishment candidates do you. They always frame the questions badly against Bernie because they want to smear him.

This is why people dont take you seriously because you can't even admit how the media loves to smear Bernie.

True or False

Bernie never said a direct quote where he thinks the boston bomber should be able to vote, he said all people in jail should be able to


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

there is no smear.

bernie said *everybody* in jail should be able to vote.

it doesn't matter if he didn't outright say he thinks the boston bomber should be able to vote, or rapists. they are included in the *everyone*.

if bernie had his way, the boston bomber would be able to vote... correct?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> there is no smear.
> 
> bernie said *everybody* in jail should be able to vote.
> 
> it doesn't matter if he didn't outright say he thinks the boston bomber should be able to vote, or rapists. they are included in the *everyone*.
> 
> if bernie had his way, the boston bomber would be able to vote... correct?


Yes it does matter if the media is pretending to quote Bernie on something he did not directly say and not put what he said in full context.

Its just like with the whole Omar thing, the media taking what she said about saying some people did somethign and not put it in full context.

Taking something anyone says out of context to bash them is always a smear.

If you really think that is ok then you are not a serious person and just prove once again you dont care about the truth.

This is my last post on this with you since you obvious dont care about the media putting things in full context.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Berzerker's Beard said:


> if bernie had his way, the boston bomber would be able to vote... correct?


BM please answer the question.


----------



## Draykorinee

If Bernie wants to let everyone have a vote then he wants the Boston Bomber to vote too. I don't see it being a major problem suggesting it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> If Bernie wants to let everyone have a vote then he wants the Boston Bomber to vote too. I don't see it being a major problem suggesting it.


Its a huge problem the media is focusing on that with their headline and not just saying that Bernie wants everyone to vote.

That would be like saying, someone saying oh they believe everyone has the right to free speech but the headline being OMG so and so thinks is ok to call black people the N word.

Do you think that framing is ok too


----------



## CamillePunk

It's a problem for Bernie, it's not a problem for the country. The country doesn't want the Boston bomber voting. :lol Who the fuck would, besides a deranged communist?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> BM please answer the question.


I will use your own quote to answer your question



Berzerker's Beard said:


> there is no smear.
> 
> bernie said *everybody* in jail should be able to vote.
> 
> it doesn't matter if *he didn't outright say he thinks the boston bomber should be able to vote*, or rapists. they are included in the *everyone*.
> 
> if bernie had his way, the boston bomber would be able to vote... correct?



You admitted exactly what I said lol


----------



## BRITLAND

Draykorinee said:


> If Bernie wants to let everyone have a vote then he wants the Boston Bomber to vote too. I don't see it being a major problem suggesting it.


I agree, although I personally think he should hire Kyle Kulinski as an advisor/strategist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HolRT8n-Jnw&t=973s


----------



## CamillePunk

http://futurefemaleleader.com/joe-bidens-12-worst-gaffes/ref/43/



> Joe Biden has officially announced his candidacy for President of the United States. Joe Biden is a man that is no stranger to controversy especially when it involves himself. From his overly-touchy demeanor to him dropping out of the 1988 Presidential Election because of accusations of plagiarism. Here, I am going to list some of his best gaffes. In fact, they need no commenting from me to make him look..well…unpresidential. He suffers from a severe case of “foot in mouth” syndrome.
> 
> 1) When Joe Biden told a paraplegic to stand up.
> 
> “Stand up, Chuck, let them see you” is the exact quote. He follows by saying “Oh, God love ya, what am I talking about?” then says “I’ll tell you what, you’re making everybody else stand up though, pal.”
> 
> 2) When Biden made racist remarks.
> 
> “I mean, you’ve got the first mainstream African American man who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
> 
> 3) When Joe Biden repeatedly plagiarized or quoted many without credit or citation.
> 
> This isn’t something new or different. He was caught plagiarizing in college and here is a video from his plagiarizing speeches:
> 
> 4) When Biden was confused which parent of Irish Prime Minister’s was dead.
> 
> “His mom lived in Long Island for 10 years or so, God rest her soul,” and then he caught his mistake so he followed up by saying “Although she’s, wait. Your mom’s still alive. It was your dad that passed. God bless her soul.”
> 
> 5) When Biden commented on the increasing Indian American population in Delaware with the worst possible anecdote.
> 
> “In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”
> 
> 6) When he couldn’t spell.
> 
> “Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: Jobs. J-O-B-S.”
> 
> 7) When he said “Barack America”
> 
> “This election year, the choice is clear. One man stands to deliver change we desperately need. A man I’m proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next president of the United States—Barack America!”
> 
> 8) When he said “30 percent chance we’re going to get it wrong”
> 
> His quote being “The president and I were talking about something yesterday in the Oval Office which, with the press here I’ll not suggest what it was, but the response to the folks who were in the office was, if we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, we stand up there and we make really tough decisions, there’s still a 30 percent chance we’re going to get it wrong.”
> 
> 9) When Biden was overheard making comments about women to then Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko
> 
> “I cannot believe that a French man visiting Kiev went back home and told his colleagues he discovered something and didn’t say he discovered the most beautiful women in the world. That’s my observation.”
> 
> 10) When Biden had words with custard shop manager.
> 
> When handed a cone of custard on the house from the manager and the manager making a comment about lowering the taxes in exchange, Biden said “Why don’t you say something nice instead of being a smart a** all the time?”
> 
> 11) When Biden insinuated that Republicans would bring back a form of slavery.
> 
> When speaking to a crowd in Danville, VA that Mitt Romney’s plans for Wall Street, said “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”
> 
> 12) When he said inappropriate sexual innuendo.
> 
> In a 2012 speech, Joe Biden said “Now is the time to heed the timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick.’ End of quote,” and followed by saying “I promise you, the president has a big stick.”
> Take from this what you will.


We need a return to normalcy and decency! :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

BRITLAND said:


> I agree, although I personally think he should hire Kyle Kulinski as an advisor/strategist:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HolRT8n-Jnw&t=973s


Oh and look Kyle even admits its a smear question, again just like I said


----------



## MrMister

O. Sea is a solid dad joke.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

bernie's supporters have the reasoning capability of pre-schoolers :lol :lol :lol

this kid is too much :lol



*me:* "bernie sanders says he thinks everyone in jail should vote"

*bm:* "but he didn't explicitly say he wants the boston bomber to be able to vote"

*me: *"he said he thinks everyone in jail should vote. that includes the boston bomber and other violent criminals."

*bm:* "but he didn't say he wants him to vote, it's a smear"

*me:* "the boston bomber is in jail. bernie thinks everyone in jail should vote. that means he thinks the boston bomber should be able to vote"

*bm:* "but he didn't say that"


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh and look Kyle even admits its a smear question, again just like I said


yea it WAS a trap question, one in which anyone with an inkling of common sense could have evaded :lol

the answer to "do you think the boston bomber should be able to vote" is *NO*.

crazy bernie was the only one dumb enough to go balls deep and give the press the ammo they needed :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> bernie's supporters have the reasoning capability of pre-schoolers :lol :lol :lol
> 
> this kid is too much :lol
> 
> 
> 
> *me:* "bernie sanders says he thinks everyone in jail should vote"
> 
> *bm:* "but he didn't explicitly say he wants the boston bomber to be able to vote"
> 
> *me: *"he said he thinks everyone in jail should vote. that includes the boston bomber and other violent criminals."
> 
> *bm:* "but he didn't say he wants him to vote, it's a smear"
> 
> *me:* "the boston bomber is in jail. bernie thinks everyone in jail should vote. that means he thinks the boston bomber should be able to vote"
> 
> *bm:* "but he didn't say that"



LOL you the the worst poster on this forum, you admitted what i said, I even quoted you and you are still trying to disagree with me lol

your gimmick is getting old, stop embarrassing yourself


----------



## deepelemblues

BernieOld got together his brain trust of brainless millenials and the idea they came up with to deal with black voters not backing him was this. And of course, being a dotard, BernieOld fucked it up :lol

BernieOld tweet on April 25, with accompanying video:



> I've been criticized for saying this, so let me say it again: Every American citizen should have the right to vote, even if they are in jail.


Go call BernieOld a liar and tell him what he _really _said

But more importantly...

Every American citizen? Even American citizens who are _Nazis?! _Coupled with his recent comments on immigration, BernieOld is undeniably a racist alt right white nationalist jackbooted fascist


----------



## DesolationRow

The Nate Silvers of the world are solid at collecting raw data but they tend to struggle in determining the meaning of almost any of it. So while Silver's data concerning Joe Biden is correct, he is drawing a number of inaccurate conclusions from said data.

Something that "political experts" frequently overlook is that for all of the talk of energy (a word Donald Trump likes) and overarching social inclinations which inform presidential campaigns is that while Biden is never going to win awards for being among the more exciting candidates in an ever-expanding field, he presents a reasonable alternative. Forget morality; Biden is a despicable figure, yes, but a number of different phenomena are occurring simultaneously, allowing him to have a shot at this. He is nowhere near the frontrunner (none exists, either, to be fair) but it would also be wrong to dismiss him. 

Think of the Democratic primaries as the NBA playoffs. Biden has been bounced from the first and second rounds of said playoffs in the past, but he is a veteran and for all of his ethical faults knows the beginning of the path.

Firstly, one has to win primaries, and the first bunch of states--Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina--all favor Biden to some extent or another for a rather simple reason, at this time, i.e., late April 2019. Why? Because polling in all three states suggests that for Democratic Baby Boomers--who still represent the largest demographic of voters--"electability" in a theoretical one-on-one presidential match-up between the generic Democrat and Donald Trump is the single most important issue in determining who they vote for through either a caucus or primary system. Now, there are sound and highly reasonable arguments to contend that someone other than Biden--perhaps Bernie Sanders, perhaps Kamala Harris, perhaps... take your pick--is the most "electable" personage in the Democrats' field, but the entire reason Biden stands tallest in the polling _today_ is because he is perceived as being the most electable by Democratic Baby Boomers. 

That could change between now and wintertime, but for now, Biden's single greatest asset is that he is perceived as being so danged electable. Oh so electable. The man's very pheromones give off a waft of electability he is so electable, you see. Now, we can all argue about this but that is how he is viewed by Democratic Baby Boomers who have effectively "grown up with" this cretin. Remember: Howard Dean was by far the "hottest" gunslinger the Democrats had in 2003, so much so that he "energized the young" and ran against George W. Bush with so much gusto. However, the Iowa Caucus voters, again, Baby Boomers, saw John Kerry--another figure with whom they "grew up"--as being oh so electable. 

There are counters to this point. Obvious ones. However, 2004 and 2020 for Democrats are slightly similar in that they are the party attempting to retake the White House after four years (depending on whether or not Trump is impeached and removed from office between now and fall 2020) of a Republican president. However, the argument may be more potent this time around than in '04 simply because Trump is viewed as simply "not normal" as Biden likes to say. 

Secondly, this overgrown field, at this point in time, at least, helps Biden. The point that this is some sort of battle royale melee benefits Biden because each fiefdom of the Democrats' interest groups and demographics is diced up. The more "noise" there is, and the more alternative "progressives" siphon any attention or votes or devotion away from Sanders, the better for Biden. He is an old Democratic warhorse which in a number of ways should be anathema to what the Democrats want, but he is, again, known, and Baby Boomers will still be the determining demographic in the first bundle of states. Hugely beneficial to Biden. 

Thirdly, and finally, while Sanders has certainly seen a significant uptick of favorable polling among blacks since 2016, Biden is, as an avatar, much better-situated than Sanders in the critical Democratic primary state of South Carolina. The overwhelming majority of black voters could not care less what comes out of Biden's mouth regarding his gaffes; he's supported because he was on the historic 2008 ticket with Barack Obama, who gifted Biden the vice presidency. And Kamala Harris, for a black lady, has proven to be inconsistent--to put it mildly--in attracting blacks in polling, perhaps because she comes off as so hilariously, ineffably "fake" in her pandering, coupled with her own questionable-for-late-2010s-Democrats history.

Biden has a host of weaknesses. He may be "#MeToo'd" to death by October and have to leave public life (unlikely). He may have said something so horrible, so stupid, so inexcusable, since this poster commenced writing this post a few minutes ago (highly likely). He may simply fade into the background and be overtaken by hotter candidates. His own record may be used against him (highly likely). Someone like Sanders could bring up the point that Biden's entire racket for decades has been to provide credit card companies with a sufficiently comfortable mattress on which to land no matter what they were responsible for doing. 

Both Sanders and most recently Harris had strong showings. Harris could finally ignite. Beto O'Rourke could, after now stumbling for a couple of weeks, regain the momentum he enjoyed in almost defeating Ted Cruz due to Texas's swift demographic changes (humorously Cruz only won because so many middle class whites fleeing states such as California had moved to Texas). The fact that Barack Obama is obviously disinterested in gifting Biden an endorsement is another severe blow to Biden's campaign as it commences.

However, Biden as a candidate has some strengths, too. They are built-in, chiefly due to which states vote at the beginning of the Democrats' primary season. He has to hunker down and be ready to take on plenty of turbulence but if he merely presents himself as "Mr. Baby Boomer" he will have a shot. As stated before by this poster, young people rarely show up in the numbers necessary for their candidate (Sanders) to overtake the establishment's pick (who is not even Biden, another flaw for him to overcome). 

The odds are that the race is going to largely be between Harris and Sanders, but Biden has an opening. Whether that opening closes or not depends on what happens between now and the Iowa Caucus.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh and look Kyle even admits its a smear question, again just like I said


The MSM will always smear people like Bernie who go against the grain and/or can't be controlled. I would go as far as to say never trust any politician who is supported by the press. CNN in particular is clearly just the propaganda arm of the DNC and certain corporate interests, as shown by the wikileaks DNC emails.

Having said that, and forgetting about the Boston Bomber, the entire premise of allowing 'everyone to vote' including criminals is ridiculous. Should children be able to vote, they are people too? The fact is there is no reason at all for criminals in jail to be given the vote, other than political expediency, in that statistically most of those in jail would probably vote Democrat. Constitutionally there is no precedent, it was clearly not the intention of the founding fathers as criminals were never allowed to vote in their time and 14th Amendment makes clear that a person can lose the right to vote by committing a crime. Criminals also lose other rights during their incarceration, such as the right to bear arms. It is a consequence of their devious actions against society. I think it is a pretty fair punishment. Besides it is logical anyway that imprisoned criminals can not vote since there is no way that they can make an informed choice on what would be the best direction for the country, if they have been in jail for any significant amount of time.

So yes it was a smear question and it should be expected, but Bernie is giving them fuel by having such an insane policy, you can't blame your family for being perturbed by it, I wouldn't vote for any UK politician who supported any similar motion either.


----------



## ShiningStar

It's hard to imagine Biden will end up the nominee. He is gonna get hit from the left by Bernie and Warren people and many in the Establishment will come for him so that Kamala,Cory,Pete or Poochie can be the anti Bernie choice. Also these candidate's actual face to face campaigning in Iowa and NH matters,Biden doesn't strike me as someone who is gonna fight as hard and grind for hours on end going to the small diners and Town Hall's in those state to secure the votes like the younger 1st time candidates. The electability arguement which is his acecard will eventually get torn to shreds the more the controversies and gaffes pile up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> The MSM will always smear people like Bernie who go against the grain and/or can't be controlled. I would go as far as to say never trust any politician who is supported by the press. CNN in particular is clearly just the propaganda arm of the DNC and certain corporate interests, as shown by the wikileaks DNC emails.
> 
> Having said that, and forgetting about the Boston Bomber, the entire premise of allowing 'everyone to vote' including criminals is ridiculous. Should children be able to vote, they are people too? The fact is there is no reason at all for criminals in jail to be given the vote, other than political expediency, in that statistically most of those in jail would probably vote Democrat. Constitutionally there is no precedent, it was clearly not the intention of the founding fathers as criminals were never allowed to vote in their time and 14th Amendment makes clear that a person can lose the right to vote by committing a crime. Criminals also lose other rights during their incarceration, such as the right to bear arms. It is a consequence of their devious actions against society. I think it is a pretty fair punishment. Besides it is logical anyway that imprisoned criminals can not vote since there is no way that they can make an informed choice on what would be the best direction for the country, if they have been in jail for any significant amount of time.
> 
> So yes it was a smear question and it should be expected, but Bernie is giving them fuel by having such an insane policy, you can't blame your family for being perturbed by it, I wouldn't vote for any UK politician who supported any similar motion either.


Bernie said anyone that is over 18 and american. Why are you bringing up children?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie said anyone that is over 18 and american. Why are you bringing up children?


oh don't worry in due time

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03...-vote-to-let-16-year-olds-vote-for-president/



> A majority of House Democrats on Wednesday voted to lower the federal voting age from 18 to 16.
> 
> A number of high-profile Democrats voted in favor of the legislation, including California Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, and Ted Lieu; Democratic presidential candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard; New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib; and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.


^ of course the usual suspects.

by the way you appear to be the only person in this thread who is in favor of having imprisoned felons be able to vote.

maybe you should listen to the people in your family. they might be onto something.


----------



## Draykorinee

16 is old enough in my opinion, however the likelihood is the voter base will be tiny as most 16 year olds dont give a fuck. Its only crusty old cunts that won't want 16+ to vote because they'd generally vote Liberally. 

But then this is the same country that allows child marriages, something usually associated with muslim countries, so I see no reason why crusty old men should be so upset.


----------



## CamillePunk

Age shouldn't be the deciding factor for voting. Whether or not someone is actually a productive member of society, i.e paying income tax or creating jobs should be. Though something tells me Democrats would not enjoy such a system. :lol


----------



## DaRealNugget

Bernie is on the right side, as usual.

Nothing screams authoritarian more than the state stripping someone of the right to vote against a system that is imprisoning them. The criminal justice system today is a byproduct of Jim Crow laws designed to imprison and suppress the votes of minorities and the poor. The War on Drugs has succeeded in that regard, as we incarcerate more citizens than any other country in the world(predominantly PoC).

What's to stop the state from one day making it illegal to be a democrat or republican, or to hold a certain political position? We've already seen it, with the recent attempts to criminalize boycotts of Israel. Hell, people have had their right to vote stripped away for _marijuana possession_.

Prisoners should always be allowed to vote, not because it will help democrats, but because it is a much needed check against the persecution of political dissidents by the state in its attempts to suppress people.

Fucking pathetic how the small government crowd is getting a hard on at the idea of the state they fear so much stripping people of their rights.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

Politics is over.


----------



## CamillePunk

Bernie could actually turn this into a win by saying that while he's for prisoners being allowed to vote, he thinks we should strip people convicted with acts of violent terrorism of their citizenship. Then the surviving member of the Boston bomb bros can't vote, American prisoners who *aren't* convicted violent terrorists can, and the right-wing crowd can get erect at the prospect of stripping foreign-born Islamic terrorists who happen to be American citizens of their citizenship.  I'm halfway there just thinking about it myself.

Oh, apparently we can't do that because the Supreme Court already ruled on this and decided that citizenship, even for foreign-born naturalized citizens, is an "absolute right" that can never be taken away. :lol To be fair this was in the 1940s so I guess they didn't think the next generation would open the door to the third world and all the toxic, destructive ideologies that would come with it. Oops, guess we're fucked.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

DaRealNugget said:


> Bernie is on the right side, as usual.
> 
> Nothing screams authoritarian more than the state stripping someone of the right to vote against a system that is imprisoning them. The criminal justice system today is a byproduct of Jim Crow laws designed to imprison and suppress the votes of minorities and the poor. The War on Drugs has succeeded in that regard, as we incarcerate more citizens than any other country in the world(predominantly PoC).
> 
> What's to stop the state from one day making it illegal to be a democrat or republican, or to hold a certain political position? We've already seen it, with the recent attempts to criminalize boycotts of Israel. Hell, people have had their right to vote stripped away for _marijuana possession_.
> 
> Prisoners should always be allowed to vote, not because it will help democrats, but because it is a much needed check against the persecution of political dissidents by the state in its attempts to suppress people.
> 
> Fucking pathetic how the small government crowd is getting a hard on at the idea of the state they fear so much stripping people of their rights.


i mean i commend you for standing by your convictions unlike a certain other user in this thread... but i strongly disagree. i can't believe the national conversation has even taken this turn, that's how absurd a notion i find it.

for one bernie isn't making the case that non-violent marijuana offenders should be voting, he's making the case that *everyone in jail* should be voting. including the worst of the worst.

they are already stripped of their basic human rights just by virtue of being in jail. they're locked in a cage all day for god sakes. they get maybe an hour or two of recreation time a day at best. yet somehow we are treating them unfairly by not allowing them to vote? spare me with all due respect. terrorists, murderers, rapists and other violent criminals don't have the luxury of being treated like ordinary citizens hence why they are punished like animals. 

and given how much democrats care about the 'sanctity' of fair elections, it seems awfully hypocritical that they would push for inmates to vote. for one these prisoners would be wholly uninformed. second what's stopping anyone from incentivizing prisoners to vote a certain way... or even THREATENING the prisoners if they don't vote a certain way? we would never know. you are basically begging for there to be foul play.

i mean we already have politicians pandering to the lowest of the low in order to win votes. do we really want them pandering to PRISONERS and CRIMINALS now too? 

come on, use common sense.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie said anyone that is over 18 and american. Why are you bringing up children?


Hahaha, impressive how you ignored my entire post, and dodged every reasoned point there. I have posted it again below so that you can respond properly this time. I've even edited it so that you can't get confused as to what my actual point is.



> The MSM will always smear people like Bernie who go against the grain and/or can't be controlled. I would go as far as to say never trust any politician who is supported by the press. CNN in particular is clearly just the propaganda arm of the DNC and certain corporate interests, as shown by the wikileaks DNC emails.
> 
> Having said that, and forgetting about the Boston Bomber, the entire premise of allowing 'everyone to vote' including criminals is ridiculous. The fact is there is no reason at all for criminals in jail to be given the vote, other than political expediency, in that statistically most of those in jail would probably vote Democrat. Constitutionally there is no precedent, it was clearly not the intention of the founding fathers as criminals were never allowed to vote in their time and 14th Amendment makes clear that a person can lose the right to vote by committing a crime. Criminals also lose other rights during their incarceration, such as the right to bear arms. It is a consequence of their devious actions against society. I think it is a pretty fair punishment. Besides it is logical anyway that imprisoned criminals can not vote since there is no way that they can make an informed choice on what would be the best direction for the country, if they have been in jail for any significant amount of time.
> 
> Why should criminals have more of a right to vote than people aged between 16 and 18? Or non-citizens who have been residents in the US for many years?
> 
> So yes it was a smear question and it should be expected, but Bernie is giving them fuel by having such an insane policy, you can't blame your family for being perturbed by it, I wouldn't vote for any UK politician who supported any similar motion either.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Age shouldn't be the deciding factor for voting. Whether or not someone is actually a productive member of society, i.e paying income tax or creating jobs should be. Though something tells me Democrats would not enjoy such a system. :lol


Bring back the property requirement to vote? :nod

Updated, of course, so "property" has a bit more expansive definition than "land"


----------



## yeahbaby!

Um how did the Boston Bomber get in to this? He's also a crim so he's allowed in the category that Bernie wants to be able to vote? Pretty big bridge to build there.

I would've thought that even a 10 year old could tell you a blanket statement like that probably doesn't apply to mass murderers and the like.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Um how did the Boston Bomber get in to this? He's also a crim so he's allowed in the category that Bernie wants to be able to vote? Pretty big bridge to build there.
> 
> I would've thought that even a 10 year old could tell you a blanket statement like that probably doesn't apply to mass murderers and the like.


He said it (repeatedly) without qualification, but you should be smart enough to figure out he really meant it would have qualifications that would have been best for him to have added but he didn't

:thumbsup

I would've thought that even a [insultingly low number] year old would be a bit more clever about denying that his hand was in the cookie jar while it was in the cookie jar in plain view of everyone


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Antis...ations-of-NYT-for-anti-Semitic-cartoon-588044

_New York Times_... :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Hahaha, impressive how you ignored my entire post, and dodged every reasoned point there. I have posted it again below so that you can respond properly this time. I've even edited it so that you can't get confused as to what my actual point is.


Did you not bring up children voting? Once you said that I stopped reading your post because of that ridiculous remark As for your main point why should criminals have more rights than people between 16-18, the law isn't people 16-18 can vote so your point does not even make any sense.

I have no issue with people 16-18 being able to vote, pretty sure Bernie wouldn't either. that question was never asked of him.

The point Bernie was making was any one who is legally allowed to vote IE 18 years or older and american should never have that right taken away even if they go to jail.


----------



## Ygor

If he were still alive Bernie Sanders would not only fight for Charles Manson's right to vote but also support him moderating a town hall meeting at Corcoran State Prison.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Did you not bring up children voting? Once you said that I stopped reading your post because of that ridiculous remark As for your main point why should criminals have more rights than people between 16-18, the law isn't people 16-18 can vote so your point does not even make any sense.
> 
> I have no issue with people 16-18 being able to vote, pretty sure Bernie wouldn't either. that question was never asked of him.
> *
> The point Bernie was making was any one who is legally allowed to vote IE 18 years or older and american should never have that right taken away even if they go to jail.*


so someone that's in jail for a hate crime i.e. killing someone for being gay or for being trans... should have a vote when it comes to same sex/trans discrimination laws?

yes or no.

(per usual i don't expect you to respond, just putting your hypocrisy on blast)


----------



## birthday_massacre

Ygor said:


> If he were still alive Bernie Sanders would not only fight for Charles Manson's right to vote but also support him moderating a town hall meeting at Corcoran State Prison.
















Berzerker's Beard said:


> so someone that's in jail for a hate crime i.e. killing someone for being gay or for being trans... should have a vote when it comes to same sex/trans discrimination laws?
> 
> yes or no.
> 
> (per usual i don't expect you to respond, just putting your hypocrisy on blast)


yes the should because its their right to vote

Was the supposed to be a hard question

I am not a fraud like you are. I stand by my convictions, where as you contradict yourself all the time and make excuses when you do.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> yes the should because its their right to vote
> 
> Was the supposed to be a hard question


no it's actually not a tough question, the answer should be painfully and morally obvious. 

weren't you in favor of banning and suspending people on twitter for 'misgendering' someone? 

in other words you think it's okay to silence a transphobe online in the public forum... but if that same individual *murdered* a trans person... you're NOT okay silencing them when it comes to their voting rights? 

don't worry bud, as much shit as i give you on here i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. i know you're just trying to defend bernie. i know you don't actually believe this nonsense :lol

fukkin bernie supporters man :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> no it's actually not a tough question, the answer should be painfully and morally obvious.
> 
> weren't you in favor of banning and suspending people on twitter for 'misgendering' someone?
> 
> in other words you think it's okay to silence a transphobe online in the public forum... but if that same individual *murdered* a trans person... you're NOT okay silencing them when it comes to their voting rights?
> 
> don't worry bud, as much shit as i give you on here i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. i know you're just trying to defend bernie. i know you don't actually believe this nonsense :lol
> 
> fukkin bernie supporters man :lol


You are right the answer is painfully and morally obvious. And the answer is YES because its their RIGHT.

We have already been over the whole twitter thing. Twitter can do what they want because they are not the GOVT so if they ban someone is does not infringe upon your free speech because you agree to their TOS when you join.

You are talking apples and oranges. 

I do think everyone in jail should be able to vote, it has nothing to do with Bernie.

Do you think if someone goes to jail for lets say selling pot they should not be allowed to vote?

Or is it just crimes you dont like?

And If I didnt like something Bernie says or believes in I would say it. I dont agree with everything Bernie is for, its like 94% but there are things he has said, I have said yeah that is dumb he is for that or said that.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> You are right the answer is painfully and morally obvious. And the answer is YES because its their RIGHT.
> 
> We have already been over the whole twitter thing. Twitter can do what they want because they are not the GOVT so if they ban someone is does not infringe upon your free speech because you agree to their TOS when you join.
> 
> You are talking apples and oranges.
> 
> I do think everyone in jail should be able to vote, it has nothing to do with Bernie.
> 
> Do you think if someone goes to jail for lets say selling pot they should not be allowed to vote?
> 
> Or is it just crimes you dont like?
> 
> And If I didnt like something Bernie says or believes in I would say it. I dont agree with everything Bernie is for, its like 94% but there are things he has said, I have said yeah that is dumb he is for that or said that.


i don't think anyone should be sitting in jail for selling pot, but that is a whole different argument altogether.

for one i think it's safe to assume that someone who willingly defies the law... probably wasn't going to vote in the first place. in fact i bet if you were to poll most prisons you'd see that the overwhelming majority of inmates never voted in their entire life.

i also think someone who's been sentenced to jail probably has a tough time keeping up with most current political matters, so i don't see what they would be voting for to begin with. not to mention that prisons are ripe with corruption behind the scenes and there would be no real way to 'govern' voter turnout.

the reason dems are campaigning on this issue is because they see a large body of untapped people they hope to have tip the scales in their favor. it's not a moral issue. i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the correction unions were all ran by democrats. theoretically they could find ways to bribe or threaten inmates to vote.

but you didn't say 'non violent pot dealers'... you said everyone that's in prison. so that means the scumbags too. the murderers, the rapists, the terrorists... the worst of the worst. it's pretty asinine that you didn't originally make that distinction.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i don't think anyone should be sitting in jail for selling pot, but that is a whole different argument altogether.
> 
> for one i think it's safe to assume that someone who willingly defies the law... probably wasn't going to vote in the first place. in fact i bet if you were to poll most prisons you'd see that the overwhelming majority of inmates never voted in their entire life.
> 
> i also think someone who's been sentenced to jail probably has a tough time keeping up with most current political matters, so i don't see what they would be voting for to begin with. not to mention that prisons are ripe with corruption behind the scenes and there would be no real way to 'govern' voter turnout.
> 
> the reason dems are campaigning on this issue is because they see a large body of untapped people they hope to have tip the scales in their favor. it's not a moral issue. i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the correction unions were all ran by democrats. theoretically they could find ways to bribe or threaten inmates to vote.
> 
> but you didn't say 'non violent pot dealers'... you said everyone that's in prison. so that means the scumbags too. the murderers, the rapists, the terrorists... the worst of the worst. it's pretty asinine that you didn't originally make that distinction.


Right because all the people going to jail for mass shootings are going to be democrats lol 

Also your logic of someone who's been sentenced to jail probably has a tough time keeping up with most current political matters LOL like most voters even do that. Most voters just vote for their party and dont even know what they stand for. so the point of people in jail not keeping up with current politics is a terrible point. 

Another BS point by you claiming theoretically they could find ways to bribe or threaten inmates to vote. a couple of states they let inmates vote and that does not happen. 

That shit happens way more in republican counties which. When ever there is huge fuckery with voting its usually republicans.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

birthday_massacre said:


> Did you not bring up children voting? Once you said that I stopped reading your post because of that ridiculous remark As for your main point why should criminals have more rights than people between 16-18, the law isn't people 16-18 can vote so your point does not even make any sense.
> 
> I have no issue with people 16-18 being able to vote, pretty sure Bernie wouldn't either. that question was never asked of him.
> 
> The point Bernie was making was any one who is legally allowed to vote IE 18 years or older and american should never have that right taken away even if they go to jail.


Saying that prisoners should vote is equally ridiculous, that was my point. Also my point about 16 - 18 year olds does make sense, if this policy was made into law, as things stand, a prisoner would have more right to vote than an informed 17 year old. Is that right? The same can be said for long term US residents who are citizens of other countries. Is that right?

Very convenient that you didn't read or respond to any of the points which actually addressed the issue we're talking about. Almost as if you can't defend your point and so are unwilling to have an honest debate about it. If you are willing to defend Bernie and this terrible policy then then please answer the following questions.

1) How can a prisoner who has been in prison for many years make an informed choice about who should be president/ what direction the country should go?

2) Why should prisoners be able to vote? There is no constitutional (the 14th amendment specifies that those who have committed crimes can be stripped of their vote) or historical precedent. So please justify exactly why prisoners should be able to vote?

3) Prisoners are stripped of other rights when they go to jail, so should they have all of these other rights granted, or just the ability to vote? If so why specifically the right to vote? 

4) If someone has committed a heinous crime against society, why should they not be stripped of their right to have a stake in society as part of their sentence? Especially when there is no prospect of them being released. It is part of the punishment for committing a crime. They are fully aware of this fact and yet commit their crime anyway. Why is this an unfair punishment? Especially in comparison to stripping prisoners of their right to move freely, privac, etc.

5) Do you not admit that this (statistically) would largely benefit the Democratic vote? For all the reasons listed above, this really does appear to be a highly transparent and shallow move of political expediency.

6) Just for the record, I believe that once a Felon has served their sentence, the vote should be given back to them, I think it is very wrong that in some states this is not the case. Furthermore, I believe Marijuana should be decriminalised and that Drug users should be given much lighter sentences. I am even open to the idea of decriminalising all drugs. These seem to be much more important and relevant issues with the US criminal justice system, would you agree that Bernie should concentrate more on them than on his highly unpopular and distasteful policy to allow all prisoners to vote?


----------



## Twilight Sky

*2) Why should prisoners be able to vote? There is no constitutional (the 14th amendment specifies that those who have committed crimes can be stripped of their vote)
*

Didn't know about that. It's also one of the oldest ones, so there must have been a pretty good reason it was passed.


----------



## Strike Force

Hoolahoop33 said:


> 1) How can a prisoner who has been in prison for many years make an informed choice about who should be president/ what direction the country should go?


Good overall post. 

A prisoner certainly has the ability to access the news, either through watching TV or having someone on the outside send him newspapers or magazines. Is that what you meant, or were you referring to the broader experience of life in the nation?



Hoolahoop33 said:


> 3) Prisoners are stripped of other rights when they go to jail, so should they have all of these other rights granted, or just the ability to vote? If so why specifically the right to vote?


There's a weird world in which a politician tries to garner the "prison vote" and promises something to the 2+ million people behind bars. It sounds bizarre, but it could absolutely happen, and 2 million votes is more than enough to swing a close national election.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> 5) Do you not admit that this (statistically) would largely benefit the Democratic vote? For all the reasons listed above, this really does appear to be a highly transparent and shallow move of political expediency.


Yep...there's no way to know for certain, of course, but all the statistics suggest that the prison population would skew about 70/30 Democratic.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> 6) Just for the record, I believe that once a Felon has served their sentence, the vote should be given back to them, I think it is very wrong that in some states this is not the case.


Agreed 100%.


----------



## virus21

This woman will not go away. She has become the female Alex Jones


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Antis...ations-of-NYT-for-anti-Semitic-cartoon-588044
> 
> _New York Times_... :lmao


*“Antisemitism does not come from one direction: it’s on the Right and the Left,” wrote Holocaust expert Deborah Lipstadt. “If you only see it in the opposite side of where you stand politically then you are blind in at least one eye and turning the fight against it into a political weapon.”*

Imagine that, people turning a blind eye to those who agree with you politically, who woulda thunk it? :laugh:

The comments section is great!


----------



## DesolationRow

Thus far multiple Democratic candidates are struggling to thread the needle of challenging Joe Biden's frontrunner placement through polling and not saying anything offensive (i.e., critical) of the Barack Obama presidency. Biden's greatest claim to fame is being Obama's vice-president. Yet all that is being talked about is gaffes and positions on the Anita Hill hearings and a crime bill from approximately a quarter of a century ago. 

The prickly truths concerning the Obama-Biden eight years in office will not be touched for a while, which only helps Biden continue to assume the mantle as frontrunner. Certain individuals such as Tulsi Gabbard (who is presently irrelevant in polling) and Bernie Sanders may look to reach for those points in the coming months but for now, nothing. 

Humorous to observe.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DesolationRow said:


> Thus far multiple Democratic candidates are struggling to thread the needle of challenging Joe Biden's frontrunner placement through polling and not saying anything offensive (i.e., critical) of the Barack Obama presidency. Biden's greatest claim to fame is being Obama's vice-president. Yet all that is being talked about is gaffes and positions on the Anita Hill hearings and a crime bill from approximately a quarter of a century ago.
> 
> The prickly truths concerning the Obama-Biden eight years in office will not be touched for a while, which only helps Biden continue to assume the mantle as frontrunner. Certain individuals such as Tulsi Gabbard (who is presently irrelevant in polling) and Bernie Sanders may look to reach for those points in the coming months but for now, nothing.
> 
> Humorous to observe.


Bernie and Warren will call him on it. Once people see Biden for the republican is, his numbers will fall.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Democratic primaries will be far more entertaining and rewarding than Game of Thrones. :mj


----------



## Rugrat

Hoolahoop33 said:


> 1) How can a prisoner who has been in prison for many years make an informed choice about who should be president/ what direction the country should go?


I agree with most of your points but disagree with this one. Most prisoners are allowed access to newspapers, magazines and televisions so can use that to have an adequate view of each candidate's ideas. In the UK for instance, some prisoners even have access to a primitive form of e-mail.


----------



## CamillePunk

A Twitter round-up.  

Bernie opens fire on Joe Biden's record:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123200199848075264
The New York Times not only publishes anti-Semitic cartoons, but also pushes Muslim Brotherhood propaganda as well:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123233179945635840
Lovely. Trump's words about them being the "Enemy of the People" become more and more correct every day.

Mika from MSNBC's Morning Joe talks down to one of the women Biden has allegedly creeped on:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123248020836036609

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123294469653241857
:lol It's so bizarre how Marco Rubio went from a top 3 Republican presidential candidate to one of the most irrelevant Senators in the US. Literally all he talks about is Cuba and Venezuela. Completely out of touch with what's important to American citizens. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123305044479217664^ Biggest laugh of the day for me. :lmao 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123358429123366913
:clap


So the big story today is that Mueller sent a letter to Barr complaining about his summary of Mueller's findings. The media breathlessly reported this as if Mueller is criticizing the accuracy of Barr's summary or suggesting that Barr is hiding something. Indeed, there is surely still hope left! Mueller was the knight in shining armor after all! 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123370010603347968
Oh wait, no, he said Barr's summary was accurate, he just doesn't like how it's been presented in the media. Uhm, okay then. And anyone should care because....? 

Lucy pulls the football away once more.


----------



## deepelemblues

Couldn't Uncle Joe have taken a deep breath standing up straight?

I don't usually put my head down, stick my nose beside people's hair to take a deep breath when I want to take a deep breath

Sure he could have been just taking a deep breath and his head just happened to be in that position. But come on 

I think this further confirms Mika and Joe''s sexless relationship, she clearly cannot recognize when a man is getting his jollies by doing something physically intimate to a woman


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Twilight Sky said:


> *2) Why should prisoners be able to vote? There is no constitutional (the 14th amendment specifies that those who have committed crimes can be stripped of their vote)
> *
> 
> Didn't know about that. It's also one of the oldest ones, so there must have been a pretty good reason it was passed.


Exactly, all this nonsense about how disenfranchising prisoners does not reflect the US's democratic traditions is bs. The founding fathers understood that it was a fair and logical punishment and so did Lincoln. This is nothing more than revisionist history and political expedience.



Rugrat said:


> I agree with most of your points but disagree with this one. Most prisoners are allowed access to newspapers, magazines and televisions so can use that to have an adequate view of each candidate's ideas. In the UK for instance, some prisoners even have access to a primitive form of e-mail.





Strike Force said:


> Good overall post.
> 
> A prisoner certainly has the ability to access the news, either through watching TV or having someone on the outside send him newspapers or magazines. Is that what you meant, or were you referring to the broader experience of life in the nation?


Thanks for your responses, I have to concede that I didn't realise the extent to which prisoners had access to media, but that does pose another issue I believe. Presumably this media is controlled by the Prison governor, as to what is/ isn't allowed. So if prisoners were suddenly allowed to vote, what would stop an overly zealous governor from only allowing CNN, MSNBC, NYT to be accessed by the prison population, or alternatively Fox and Breitbart. Seems like it would be far to easy to influence these prisoners since they are in a controlled environment. As Strikeforce said I was mainly referring to them not actually being able to experience life in the nation, which again would make it easier for these prisoners to be influenced perhaps by controlled media. 



Strike Force said:


> There's a weird world in which a politician tries to garner the "prison vote" and promises something to the 2+ million people behind bars. It sounds bizarre, but it could absolutely happen, and 2 million votes is more than enough to swing a close national election.


Absolutely, it just seems so wrong that a group of people, imprisoned for committing crimes against society, then get to have a stake in that society and could potentially dictate the direction of the country, while they are serving their punishment.



Strike Force said:


> Yep...there's no way to know for certain, of course, but all the statistics suggest that the prison population would skew about 70/30 Democratic.


I think that's what it is all about really. As you say, there's no way to know for certain, but all statistics right now point in that direction! If such a law were passed it would be a huge coup for the Democrats I believe. 



Strike Force said:


> Agreed 100%.


Hopefully this will at least lead to a discussion where all can agree that in all states after serving their sentence, people are given back their right to vote. 

Thanks for the constructive replies, still waiting for @birthday_massacre
to actually defend the policy that he so passionately supports. Should be easy right?


----------



## Strike Force

Hoolahoop33 said:


> Absolutely, it just seems so wrong that a group of people, imprisoned for committing crimes against society, then get to have a stake in that society and could potentially dictate the direction of the country, while they are serving their punishment.


I actually had this debate at a dinner party recently, and I analogized it thusly: 

Allowing prisoners to vote is the equivalent of letting a football player commit a penalty, then join with his teammates to change the rules of the sport to make his behavior legal.

In the US system, each person is, in principle, a lawmaker. You vote for someone to represent you on the local, state, and federal level, but each of those representatives is supposed to be a walking, breathing embodiment of your beliefs and desires that governs the way you and your fellow constituents want. Why, if you're someone that has broken the laws, should you be able to have a say in what those laws say?



Hoolahoop33 said:


> I didn't realise the extent to which prisoners had access to media, but that does pose another issue I believe. Presumably this media is controlled by the Prison governor, as to what is/ isn't allowed. So if prisoners were suddenly allowed to vote, what would stop an overly zealous governor from only allowing CNN, MSNBC, NYT to be accessed by the prison population, or alternatively Fox and Breitbart. Seems like it would be far to easy to influence these prisoners since they are in a controlled environment.


Yeah, anyone can send prisoners print media, though it must be sent directly (like from Amazon or the publisher). Wardens have actually lost their jobs for removing items from prisoner mail. Prisoners also have daily access to TV time, though rules differ slightly from prison to prison.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> If such a law were passed it would be a huge coup for the Democrats I believe.


Much like immigration (and so many other issues), prison policy is unfortunately colored by politics. As someone who tends to vote Democrat, I'd love to believe that liberals calling for prisoners' right to vote do so from a place of intellectual purity, but in reality I fear they're motivated by how many votes it would bring their party. Benefit of party is *never* a good reason to support a given policy that affects one person, let alone millions.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Hopefully this will at least lead to a discussion where all can agree that in all states after serving their sentence, people are given back their right to vote.


Absolutely. Once you've served your sentence and have no further pending charges, you should be 100% reinstated into society. To me, continuing to punish someone in any way, large or small, after release runs counter to our national ethos. It's a scarlet letter type situation.



Hoolahoop33 said:


> Thanks for the constructive replies, still waiting for @birthday_massacre
> to actually defend the policy that he so passionately supports. Should be easy right?


----------



## blaird

Strike Force said:


> Absolutely. Once you've served your sentence and have no further pending charges, you should be 100% reinstated into society. To me, continuing to punish someone in any way, large or small, after release runs counter to our national ethos. It's a scarlet letter type situation.


Would this include someone's 2nd amendment as well?? 

I agree with someone getting voting rights restored after serving a sentence but have a hard time giving someone back their 2nd amendment if they committed a violent crime or a crime with a gun. It just seems like it could be a slippery slope with something along the lines of "if you give one right back you should give them all back".


----------



## deepelemblues

US economy added almost 100,000 more jobs than expected in April, 275,000 vs. 177,000 expected

Wavin dat MAGIC WAND


----------



## ShiningStar

If Unemployment % numbers are to be taken at face value then it means Obama and Trump both got walloped in the 2014,2018 midterms despite historically strong economies.And that Obama's party lost the WH in 2016 with record strong numbers. Either people from all sides of the aisle are unaware how "strong" the economy is, or even the layman citizen no longer takes unemloyment low,stock market as basic high indicators of actual economic strength.


----------



## yeahbaby!

blaird said:


> Would this include someone's 2nd amendment as well??
> 
> I agree with someone getting voting rights restored after serving a sentence but have a hard time giving someone back their 2nd amendment if they committed a violent crime or a crime with a gun. It just seems like it could be a slippery slope with something along the lines of "if you give one right back you should give them all back".


Well the amendment doesn't say anything about taking away the right to bear arms in any circumstances? So you'd need an amendment to the amendment? Congress would need to make amendment 2.0 by all rights is my understanding.

If the militia is needed to be formed to ensure the safety of the free state, then much like defending Winterfell they'll need all the bodies they can get.


----------



## SomewhereElse

Berzerker's Beard said:


> so someone that's in jail for a hate crime i.e. killing someone for being gay or for being trans... should have a vote when it comes to same sex/trans discrimination laws?
> 
> yes or no.
> 
> (per usual i don't expect you to respond, just putting your hypocrisy on blast)


Aww, look who's a big boy now! Sean Hannity would be proud. All of Fox News' grilling tactics, represented in a post of less than 50 words:

1) Cherry-pick a super specific hypothetical that would stand out as egregious in a sea of possibilities.
2) Ignore the ludicrously small sample size said example would represent in a real life scenario.
3) Turn troublesome sounding scenario on to the opposition, forcing them to defend their position only within the narrow parameters you have created.
4) Strip broad issue of all nuance and boil it down to a "yes" or "no" answer purely on the basis of the scenario you cooked up to maximize verbal discomfort for the opposition.

Now this is the part when you reply with "Yes or Noooo. IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION!"


----------



## DOPA

The bans happened yesterday. I thought Alex Jones was already banned from FB but apparently not.


----------



## Tater

Deadhead said:


> The bans happened yesterday. I thought Alex Jones was already banned from FB but apparently not.


I don't like RWNJs either but they should not be deplatformed. Free speech for all or free speech for none.


----------



## Draykorinee

First they came for the racists and the assholes...


----------



## Strike Force

Tater said:


> I don't like RWNJs either but they should not be deplatformed. Free speech for all or free speech for none.


I'm torn. On one hand, I applaud a social media company for denying publicity and access to people that are objectively awful.

On the other, I'm terrified of who gets to draw that line and where it ends.


----------



## Tater

Strike Force said:


> I'm torn. On one hand, I applaud a social media company for denying publicity and access to people that are objectively awful.
> 
> On the other, I'm terrified of *who gets to draw that line and where it ends.*


This is the important part. Censorship always ends up censoring people who should not be censored. Once you start being okay with people being censored who you don't like, it will always end up turning around on the ones you do like.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Strike Force said:


> I'm torn. On one hand, I applaud a social media company for denying publicity and access to people that are objectively awful.
> 
> On the other, I*'m terrified of who gets to draw that line and where it ends.*


The constitution makes that clear.

The GOVT cannot control your speech but a private company ilke FB or Twitter can because you have to agree to their TOS.

Its not that difficult.


----------



## MrMister

Don't have a problem with with a private entity banning people. There is no threat of prison or death when a private entity censors you. 

To be clear, I'd rather everyone have a voice so we can distinguish the idiots and con-men as well as the maniacs from everyone else. But something like Facebook exists because their users. If they think the users will stop using because Alex Jones is an asshole then they gotta get rid of Alex Jones.

Also I despise Facebook so I hate taking their side.


----------



## CamillePunk

While Facebook are within their rights and I'm against regulating big tech, it's still a problem that this is happening and the criticism is completely warranted. The big social media companies are using their monopoly status to suppress right-wing political thought and discussion, and they've already told us the reason why: They feel partially responsible for Hillary Clinton not getting her coronation. In other words, big tech is no different than the corporate media in that they have a clear bias and are using censorship to influence our politics according to their biases. That's a dangerous level of power and willingness to abuse that power which should concern people who care about the _principles_ of free speech and freedom of expression. Just because an action is and ought to be _legal_, does not mean the action is _right_. This is clearly wrong, regardless of what you think of the people being targeted.


----------



## Rugrat

MrMister said:


> Don't have a problem with with a private entity banning people. There is no threat of prison or death when a private entity censors you.


By the same token would you not have a problem with television and Internet providers operating within a monopoly blocking certain channels which promote certain points of view?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Rugrat said:


> By the same token would you not have a problem with television and Internet providers operating within a monopoly blocking certain channels which promote certain points of view?


Internet is a (well should be) public utility, big difference. 

A TV station can put on what ever they want or dont want. As for Tv provides they can also choose what stations to carry as well, they already do that.


----------



## CamillePunk

"I have a different opinion about that, therefore there's a big difference." :mj4


----------



## DOPA

Tater said:


> I don't like RWNJs either but they should not be deplatformed. Free speech for all or free speech for none.


The big tech companies at Silicon Valley need to start being honest about what they are or at least, what they have become...which is certainly not an open platform for anyone to use regardless of political affiliation. They should now be considered publishers in so far as there are a growing number of cases where certain people are being banned for their political views in a rather arbitrary manner. 

This recent case is a perfect example, a number of mostly right wing personalities have been banned at the same time with absolutely no evidence of where or how they violated Facebook or Instagrams terms of service. The only evidence they've provided is a statement saying they've always "banned content which provokes violence and hate, regardless of ideology". First of all, at least out of the people I know, none of them have ever called for violence so that is a flat out lie. Secondly, I'd be interested to know what they consider hate is because to some people now, being critical of Islam, Transgenderism or mass immigration is considered hate. And last but not least, there are many Antifa pages that are up on these sites, a group which according to those at Silicon Valley may not "promote hate" but they certainly promote, condone and partake in violence. That is indisputable.

I certainly don't like all of the people that have been banned and have criticisms of all of the ones I at least know. I haven't followed or taken Milo seriously for years as an example. But I wouldn't want them taken off the platform in the same way I wouldn't want to take the far left or communists off the platform. They may be idiots but it doesn't mean they should be censored.

Yes they are a private companies and they can do as they please in this regard, I'm not questioning the legality of it. But the problem is at least at this very moment, these social media companies have a monopoly in regards to the type of service they provide. And with communication and political conversation and activism becoming more and more digital with each year in regards to getting peoples ideas and messages out there as well as a form for debate to be had, if you are banned from those sites you are essentially shut out from the larger online world when it comes to politics and I'm sure these companies know it. That is why this is worrying and there is a good chance that the overton window on this is going to get larger in the same way that demonetization started with fringe groups and made it's way into conservative groups and then anti-establishment left wing channels like Secular Talk and Jimmy Dore. I mean for goodness sake, we had an executive from Youtube recently talking about how she wishes she could ban Ben Shapiro because her son started watching his videos and getting exposed to his ideas. If you think his ideas are dangerous or stupid, don't be lazy and explain why he is wrong.

There is also a bigger concern I have with the tech companies at this moment in time. One of the things I've recently been getting deep into because it's both fascinating and horrifying is the social credit system that China is adopting on to it's populace. You've had companies like Google and Apple who have caved into the Chinese governments demands to abide by their standards of censorship to have access to their markets. In Google's case, I know the reason for that decision is because they feared Chinese companies would copy their algorithms and they didn't want the global competition. Amazon recently closed down their Chinese domestic branch, not because of ethical reasons but only because they couldn't compete with Chinese companies operating in the same market. What my fear is is those silicon valley companies have the algorithms, technology and data analysis to implement a social credit system at the behest of countries. I'm not saying it's going to happen but when you have the prime minister of my own country Theresa May openly calling for a China style regulation of the internet, it's not out of the realm of possibility if people aren't vigilant.

Theresa May being by the way a Conservative...or at least she identifies as one. So this issue clearly isn't right vs left.


----------



## CamillePunk

Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones were removed for...associating with Gavin McInnes outside of the platform. Facebook will now ban you for associating with people they have arbitrarily designated as "hateful" or "dangerous", even if you don't post their content on Facebook. That's clearly insane.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones were removed for...associating with Gavin McInnes outside of the platform. Facebook will now ban you for associating with people they have arbitrarily designated as "hateful" or "dangerous", even if you don't post their content on Facebook. That's clearly insane.


Business stifling freedom of association and speech was the worst thing in the world until 2016

Then it became not only okay but a moral panic and imperative


----------



## Miss Sally

The bans are interesting, we now get to see the true colors of the so called "Good guys" and those on the side of "Justice" as they go after more and more people. 

It will be a-okay until someone they like gets deplatformed.

Oh I wonder how this would be viewed if all the major Russiagaters got banned? :x


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> The bans are interesting, we now get to see the true colors of the so called "Good guys" and those on the side of "Justice" as they go after more and more people.
> 
> It will be a-okay until someone they like gets deplatformed.
> 
> Oh I wonder how this would be viewed if all the major Russiagaters got banned? :x


I would be okay if we banned Rachel Maddow from the planet.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124395865064394753
Another excellent article from Will Chamberlain at Human Events, this time laying out a compelling case for why social media platform access ought to be a civil right, and addressing some counter-arguments to the position. Worth a read for those concerned about social media censorship.


----------



## Stephen90

Miss Sally said:


> The bans are interesting, we now get to see the true colors of the so called "Good guys" and those on the side of "Justice" as they go after more and more people.
> 
> It will be a-okay until someone they like gets deplatformed.
> 
> Oh I wonder how this would be viewed if all the major Russiagaters got banned? :x


Ok cancel Bill Maher,Don Lemon and Wolf Blitzer. I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124289639345459202
:deandre


----------



## DOPA

@CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Tater






The claim about Poynter is also true:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...st-of-unreliable-news-websites-after-backlash



> *The Poynter Institute has apologized for publishing a list of 515 news websites it deemed "unreliable" after backlash from readers and on social media regarding "weaknesses in the methodology" used by the nonprofit publication.*
> 
> The index was compiled from “fake news” databases curated by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at University of Southern California, Merrimack University, PolitiFact, Snopes and data designer Chris Herbert. *Publications originally on the list included the Washington Examiner and the Washington Free Beacon.*
> 
> "Soon after we published, we received complaints from those on the list and readers who objected to the inclusion of certain sites, and the exclusion of others," Poynter managing editor Barbara Allen wrote in an explanation behind the piece that was pulled off the site on Thursday.
> 
> “We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication,” Allen added. “We pledge to continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards."
> 
> Allen said that Poynter launched the audit to test the veracity of the list and that while it felt that many of the sites "did have a track record of publishing unreliable information," the review also "found weaknesses in the methodology."
> 
> "We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report," she said in the statement.
> 
> The language in the original story also called on advertisers to "blacklist" the sites selected for the list.
> 
> "Fake news is a business. Much of that business is ad-supported,” Poynter researcher Barrett Golding wrote in the report. “Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.”
> 
> Reaction on Twitter was swift, which included criticism from journalists whose publication were included on the list.
> 
> 
> What a disgusting exercise in bad faith from an organization that's supposed to be about improving and promoting journalism. Instead, they're creating tabloid-level listicles to smear reporters without offering even a single piece of evidence. Shame on you, @Poynter.
> 
> — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) May 2, 2019
> 
> 
> Barrett Golding should be ashamed. @Poynter should be ashamed. Further retractions should be issued and the piece should be taken down until somewhere there can give actual specific reasons why they're labeling a site as unreliable that are backed up with actual evidence.
> 
> — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) May 2, 2019
> 
> 
> It's fine to hate the content at @DailySignal or disagree with that.
> 
> But we take journalism and accuracy and transparency very seriously, and @Poynter is smearing us by putting us on an unreliable news database https://t.co/j1frl70V5H
> 
> — Katrina Trinko (@KatrinaTrinko) May 2, 2019
> 
> 
> Poynter gonna need to make another list that only includes Poynter. https://t.co/EhHbmJ2PJP
> 
> — Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) May 3, 2019
> 
> 
> Junkyard Attack Dogs Pose as "Watchdogs": Journalism Institute Poynter Tries to ‘Blacklist’ 29 Conservative Outlets as ‘UnNews’ via @descarteslover https://t.co/R43zMRMY9E #MAGA @realDonaldTrump #AmericaFirst #Dobbs
> 
> — Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) May 2, 2019
> 
> 
> We should all now remember @Poynter has exposed itself as an agent of the left, but considering its a media organization we already knew that.
> 
> — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) May 3, 2019


----------



## Tater

Deadhead said:


> @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Tater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim about Poynter is also true:
> 
> https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...st-of-unreliable-news-websites-after-backlash


"left wing tech companies" 

He got that part wrong but he makes a lot of valid points. If banning so called fake news outlets is the goal though, we'd have to get rid of CNN, MSNBC and yes, Tucker's own network, FOX. Conservatives will play the victim card and whine about left wing this and left wing that but I can provide numerous examples of left wing and antiwar pages that have also been kicked off Facebook. This isn't about left vs right. It's about establishment vs anti-establishment. 

Censorship is never a good thing. No matter how much you might personally hate someone and want them censored, once you start going down the path of censorship, it will always get turned around on people you don't want censored. The concept of free speech does not exist to protect the ideas you agree with. It exists to protect the ideas you don't.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> I would be okay if we banned Rachel Maddow from the planet.





Stephen90 said:


> Ok cancel Bill Maher,Don Lemon and Wolf Blitzer. I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep.


They do kinda suck! :laugh:

What's worrying to me is that people who claim to be Left and Liberal worship at the feet of big tech companies who ban people willy nilly. They'll then bring up the whole "Well it's private companies so they can do whatever they want!" even though these same people are against big companies doing this very shady stuff. 

People have tried to make their own twitter etc and big companies have stepped in and made it nigh impossible because these companies have overwhelming reach.

Why are people cheering for the authoritarian companies that would be the bad guy in every movie?:laugh:

It's not just Right leaning people either, Secular talk has had issues, Dore has had issues, I believe Tim Pool has also. People who lean Left like H3H3 have been copyright struck etc for talking about something. Real Lefties aren't being outright banned but are being jerked around with, while the "Left" cheer on this fuckery. :hmmm


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

these big tech and social media giants may be private entities but they still have a moral responsibility. 

bank of america is a private entity but if they banned everyone that voted for ______ from having an account, or if they banned everyone that associated with ______ from having an account... i'm pretty sure the public at large would have a huge problem with that. 

people have labelled facebook, twitter and instagram the new public square. they are right about that. private businesses or not they should be held to a certain standard. these bans may be legal but they are morally reprehensible, especially since their reasoning is so vague.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> these big tech and social media giants may be private entities but they still have a moral responsibility.
> 
> bank of america is a private entity but if they banned everyone that voted for ______ from having an account, or if they banned everyone that associated with ______ from having an account... i'm pretty sure the public at large would have a huge problem with that.
> 
> people have labelled facebook, twitter and instagram the new public square. they are right about that. private businesses or not they should be held to a certain standard. these bans may be legal but they are morally reprehensible, especially since their reasoning is so vague.


LOL yeah its morally reprehensible to let racists, sexists, bigots etc spew their hate as well as some of them directing violence toward others.

And its not vague at all, its all written in the TOS when you sign up for those platforms.

Your bank analogy is also laughably bad, lets go with that, how is that any different from a Christian bakery refusing to serve gays?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL yeah its morally reprehensible to let racists, sexists, bigots etc spew their hate as well as some of them directing violence toward others.
> 
> And its not vague at all, its all written in the TOS when you sign up for those platforms.
> 
> *you spew hate speech all day on here. you hate republicans, you hate trump, you hate his supporters. can we ban you?*
> 
> Your bank analogy is also laughably bad, lets go with that, how is that any different from a Christian bakery refusing to serve gays?
> 
> *the baker didn't refuse to serve gays, he refused to bake a specific kind of cake with a specific message written on it. please don't distort the facts*


your move.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> your move.


If I broke any of the TOS of WF I would be banned. Just like anyone who breaks the TOS is banned. So are you saying WF should never ban anyone for breaking the TOS? I have gotten banned in the past for calling someone a moron and breaking the TOS. 

And the baker refused the gays peoples free speech by censoring a message on their cake. And you are ok with that type of censorship 

LOL you are too easy to refute.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> If I broke any of the TOS of WF I would be banned. Just like anyone who breaks the TOS is banned. So are you saying WF should never ban anyone for breaking the TOS?
> 
> And the baker refused the gays peoples free speech by censoring a message on their cake.
> 
> LOL you are too easy to refute.


what article of facebook's TOS did paul joseph watson violate specifically, and how? give me an example.

should be easy to answer right?


----------



## CamillePunk

There were no TOS violations. BM talking out of his ass as per usual.

Good to see Trump standing up for free speech. He's been retweeting PJW and Lauren southern today. :mark: 

Think he realizes how big social media was for him in 2016 and that he can't afford to allow big tech to take that away from him in 2020 with their clearly political agenda. 

This is becoming another "Wall" issue for me. On purely libertarian grounds, in a vacuum, I'm against deciding what social media companies can and can't do with their platform. But, what they are currently doing will lead to the complete censorship of right-wing political ideas and discussion, and thus the Democratic Party will have established a political monopoly. We know what Democrats do when they have power (using the IRS to suppress right-wing groups in the 2012 election, spying on the Trump campaign in the 2016 election), and considering their policy aims are as anti-libertarian as it gets, it becomes yet another example where the "libertarian" approach is also the ideologically suicidal approach.

Just like the Wall (which is symbolic for tighter border control and immigration restriction in this case). The libertarian approach is open borders, but that's in a situation where you don't have a massive welfare state incentivizing mass migration from the third world, which will also shift the political landscape away from conservatism, let alone libertarianism. This means the "libertarian" approach will ensure libertarians become even more of a political minority. That's senseless strategy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> what article of facebook's TOS did paul joseph watson violate specifically, and how? give me an example.
> 
> should be easy to answer right?


He got banned for what FB said ‘dangerous individuals’ because of his promoting or engaging in violence and hate.

Its funny how you always defend the worst of the worst like Alex Jones, Milo and PJW.



Just some of the shit he ha said about Obama’s birth certificate; he claimed the FBI was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168; and said there was evidence that the Virginia Tech shooting was a black ops mass-murder of 33 people ordered by the government to justify tightening gun control.

yes that was easy 

A simple google search would show you all this, plus I have been calling him out for years on this forum. He is Alex Jones Jr basically


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> He got banned for what FB said ‘dangerous individuals’ because of his promoting or engaging in violence and hate.
> 
> Its funny how you always defend the worst of the worst like Alex Jones, Milo and PJW.
> 
> 
> 
> Just some of the shit he ha said about Obama’s birth certificate; he claimed the FBI was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168; and said there was evidence that the Virginia Tech shooting was a black ops mass-murder of 33 people ordered by the government to justify tightening gun control.
> 
> yes that was easy
> 
> A simple google search would show you all this, plus I have been calling him out for years on this forum. He is Alex Jones Jr basically


****THE ABOVE POST CONTAINED MULTIPLE INFRACTIONS***
*

*1.1 FAILURE TO ANSWER QUESTION*
*The above post did not directly address the question presented by user Berzerker's Beard*
*
1.2 FAILURE TO BE TRUTHFUL*
*The above post contained numerous lies. There is nothing 'hateful' or 'violent' about suggesting the birthplace of the president or suggesting that the FBI was responsible for the oklahoma city bombing.* 

*1.3 FAILURE TO CITE FACTS & EXAMPLES*
*Despite being asked to cite specific examples, user birthday_massacre failed to provide such and engaged in random hearsay he grabbed from left leaning websites*

*
Moving forward please be more thoughtful and truthful in your responses. In the meantime (2) integrity points have been deducted from your user account.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

Berzerker's Beard said:


> ****THE ABOVE POST CONTAINED MULTIPLE INFRACTIONS***
> *
> 
> 
> *1.1 FAILURE TO ANSWER QUESTION*
> The above post did not directly address the question presented by Berzerker's Beard
> *
> 1.2 FAILURE TO BE TRUTHFUL*
> The above post contained numerous lies. There is nothing 'hateful' or 'violent' about suggesting the birthplace of the president or suggesting that the FBI was responsible for the oklahoma city bombing.
> 
> *1.3 FAILURE TO CITE FACTS & EXAMPLES*
> Despite being asked to cite specific examples, user birthday_massacre failed to provide such and engaged in random hearsay he grabbed from left leaning websites
> 
> *
> Moving forward please be more thoughtful and truthful in your responses. In the meantime (2) integrity points have been deducted from your user account.*


Time to put you back on ignore, since you are just going to troll when you are proven wrong


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

birthday_massacre said:


> Time to put you back on ignore, since you are just going to troll when you are proven wrong


****THE ABOVE POST CONTAINED AN INFRACTION****

*1.2 FAILURE TO BE TRUTHFUL*
*User birthday_massacre has made multiple claims during the month of April that he put user Berzerker's Beard on ignore. Our servers, as well as his own posts and replies, indicate this to be false.*

*Moving forward please be more thoughtful and truthful in your responses. In the meantime (2) integrity points have been deducted from your user account.*


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> *
> Moving forward please be more thoughtful and truthful in your responses. In the meantime (2) integrity points have been deducted from your user account.*


Can you really deduct from something that doesn't exist? :hmm:

That'd be like saying Trump somehow became more retarded. It's literally impossible.


----------



## skypod

Time and time again people worship at the feet of capitalism/de-regulation and then are surprised when a company acts immorally or doesn't give a shit about your freedom of speech. I'm not sure why people expect any different.


----------



## DOPA

_NVM, ignore this post or delete it._


----------



## CHAMPIONSHIPS

People are actually losing sleep over Alex Jones losing his platform? I mean, I expect that from right wingers. But anyone from the left-wing or any liberals defending these people needs to get their head checked. 

Yadda yadda yadda "all ideas need to be debated" - actually no, they don't. I know your parents raised you to believe that every opinion you have is special and valuable but that's simply not true. All ideas don't have value, and they don't all need to be debated. 

Platforming is not a right, it is a courtesy to be extended to civilized actors, for the sake of civil discussion of worthwhile ideas. But Jones and his type of people are not civilized. Nazis are not civilized. People who advocate child rape are not civilized. So we don't have to do anything but fight them really. It's a dogfight. Stop playing pattycakes


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Communist Anti-capitalist said:


> People are actually losing sleep over Alex Jones losing his platform? I mean, I expect that from right wingers. But anyone from the left-wing or any liberals defending these people needs to get their head checked.
> 
> Yadda yadda yadda "all ideas need to be debated" - actually no, they don't. I know your parents raised you to believe that every opinion you have is special and valuable but that's simply not true. All ideas don't have value, and they don't all need to be debated.
> 
> Platforming is not a right, it is a courtesy to be extended to civilized actors, for the sake of civil discussion of worthwhile ideas. But Jones and his type of people are not civilized. Nazis are not civilized. People who advocate child rape are not civilized. So we don't have to do anything but fight them really. It's a dogfight. Stop playing pattycakes


alex jones is only as important as you make him out to be. for decades we had magazines like the national enquirer peddling ridiculous conspiracy theories and it was readily available at your local supermarket near checkout. no one mobilized or petitioned to have them removed from stores. people would see the cover, read the headline...and then ignore it and go about their day.

and if you're going to ban alex jones solely on the grounds that he doesn't provide 'civil' discussion, then in the interest of fairness and consistency you would also have to ban a lot of other people as well... including some pretty famous celebrities with blue checkmarks.

banning alex jones is nothing more than a baseless virtue signal. it's them saying "see? it's not OUR fault queen hillary didn't win the election."


----------



## birthday_massacre

Communist Anti-capitalist said:


> People are actually losing sleep over Alex Jones losing his platform? I mean, I expect that from right wingers. But anyone from the left-wing or any liberals defending these people needs to get their head checked.
> 
> Yadda yadda yadda "all ideas need to be debated" - actually no, they don't. I know your parents raised you to believe that every opinion you have is special and valuable but that's simply not true. All ideas don't have value, and they don't all need to be debated.
> 
> Platforming is not a right, it is a courtesy to be extended to civilized actors, for the sake of civil discussion of worthwhile ideas. But Jones and his type of people are not civilized. Nazis are not civilized. People who advocate child rape are not civilized. So we don't have to do anything but fight them really. It's a dogfight. Stop playing pattycakes


Especially people like Alex Jones who incite violence, like he did with the whole pizza gate thing and the poor families of sandy hook.


----------



## CHAMPIONSHIPS

Berzerker's Beard said:


> alex jones is only as important as you make him out to be. for decades we had magazines like the national enquirer peddling ridiculous conspiracy theories and it was readily available at your local supermarket near checkout.


Deplatforming works. 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work



> *“We’ve been running a research project over last year, and when someone relatively famous gets no platformed by Facebook or Twitter or YouTube, there's an initial flashpoint, where some of their audience will move with them” Joan Donovan, Data and Society’s platform accountability research lead, told me on the phone, “but generally the falloff is pretty significant and they don’t gain the same amplification power they had prior to the moment they were taken off these bigger platforms.”*
> 
> read the full article for more detail





> no one mobilized or petitioned to have them removed from stores. people would see the cover, read the headline...and then ignore it and go about their day.


[/quote]

No, in fact they didn't. Those conspiracies have reach and penetration which is why one of Trump's good buddies runs the Enquirer as a propaganda arm

Your argument that deplatforming doesn't work is conceived illogically considering that ignoring conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and Friends literally only led to the prominence, and abuse of said prominence, that has necessitated their current deplatforming. If that's too complicated a sentence for you to understand - I'll put it like this - if ignoring Alex Jones was a viable strategy then how come it hasn't worked? How come his conspiracies have led to the years long harassment of shooting victims and the shootout at a pizza parlor that he implicated in a conspiracy theory? 

When someone is inciting violence, you don't ignore. You shut shit down. 



> and if you're going to ban alex jones solely on the grounds that he doesn't provide 'civil' discussion, then in the interest of fairness and consistency you would also have to ban a lot of other people as well... including some pretty famous celebrities with blue checkmarks.


Ok.... so what? You want to keep playing your Right vs Left ball game. I don't care. If someone is inciting violence, racism, hatred or promoting pedophilia then they can be deplatformed too. 



> banning alex jones is nothing more than a baseless virtue signal. it's them saying "see? it's not OUR fault queen hillary didn't win the election."


I'm gonna ignore this because literally no one cares about HRC anymore except for she seems to live rent free in some of your heads, bad attempt at a distraction lmao


----------



## virus21

De-Platforming does nothing. Its better to debate and prove the other side is wrong in the first place. That way they have little ammunition and look like fools when they try to prove that they are actually right.

Deplatforming just gives jackoffs the idea that they are being suppressed (which they would be correct in) and gives them the motivation to express their views in another way, which is almost always violence. Its doesn't matter if the view is wrong, debate them, let people fall on their own sword. Yeah, they'll still spit their venom out, but its likely less people will listen and when they do, it will mostly be to laugh at how ridiculous they are.


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> De-Platforming does nothing. Its better to debate and prove the other side is wrong in the first place. That way they have little ammunition and look like fools when they try to prove that they are actually right.
> 
> Deplatforming just gives jackoffs the idea that they are being suppressed (which they would be correct in) and gives them the motivation to express their views in another way, which is almost always violence. Its doesn't matter if the view is wrong, debate them, let people fall on their own sword. Yeah, they'll still spit their venom out, but its likely less people will listen and when they do, it will mostly be to laugh at how ridiculous they are.


Do you think FB or Twitter should allow posts or tweets that incite violence?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Communist Anti-capitalist said:


> Deplatforming works.
> 
> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work
> 
> No, in fact they didn't. Those conspiracies have reach and penetration which is why one of Trump's good buddies runs the Enquirer as a propaganda arm
> 
> Your argument that deplatforming doesn't work is conceived illogically considering that ignoring conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and Friends literally only led to the prominence, and abuse of said prominence, that has necessitated their current deplatforming. If that's too complicated a sentence for you to understand - I'll put it like this - if ignoring Alex Jones was a viable strategy then how come it hasn't worked? How come his conspiracies have led to the years long harassment of shooting victims and the shootout at a pizza parlor that he implicated in a conspiracy theory?
> 
> When someone is inciting violence, you don't ignore. You shut shit down.
> 
> *you are treading a very slippery slope once you begin holding someone accountable for the actions of others. there are prominent figures on both sides of the spectrum, both politicians and popular celebrities, that spew rhetoric which inspires others to act.
> 
> madonna said live on stage at the women's march to a crowd of thousands of angry protestors that she thought about blowing up the white house. do you consider that an incitement of violence? had someone followed through on that should we hold madaonna accountable or the loon that actually committed the act?*
> 
> Ok.... so what? You want to keep playing your Right vs Left ball game. I don't care. If someone is inciting violence, racism, hatred or promoting pedophilia then they can be deplatformed too.
> 
> *well i'm glad you feel that way, but that's the problem. people on the left are routinely given a pass and overlooked for things that people on the right get punished for.*
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna ignore this because literally no one cares about HRC anymore except for she seems to live rent free in some of your heads, bad attempt at a distraction lmao
> 
> *well she still does tours and routinely appears on liberal news stations spouting her opinions and rhetoric and constantly criticizes republicans... so obviously people still care enough about her to give her a platform. it's not like she's disappeared from the public eye. right wingers keep talking about her because she's still yapping and because left wingers constantly try and guilt them for not voting for her.
> 
> and rest assured if the democrats didn't unleash their fury at facebook and social media for losing the election, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. it is absolutely in response to their chosen savior losing to the orange man.*


bolded.


----------



## DOPA

virus21 said:


> Its doesn't matter if the view is wrong, debate them, let people fall on their own sword. Yeah, they'll still spit their venom out, but its likely less people will listen and when they do, it will mostly be to laugh at how ridiculous they are.


100% true.

The case I always like to bring up is when Nick Griffin who was and I think still is the leader of the BNP here in the UK appeared on question time a number of years back. The BNP being quite literally a white supremacist/neo-nazi party who at the time were gaining popularity and had a number of positions in local councils for a time. It was a really dark time in British politics.

When it was announced, the BBC got a number of complaints and basically was asked by a number of people what activists now ask social media companies to do: essentially de-platform him, don't allow him on the show because he promotes hate.

The BBC to their credit at the time, allowed him on the show. After his appearance on the show, support for the BNP collapsed and now they are utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of politics in the UK because it was proven beyond a doubt what he and his party was.


----------



## deepelemblues

The shamelessness with which some people declare they are proud to be for tyranny :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124717328346824704
Yes, I'm sure it was just a mistake.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> The shamelessness with which some people declare they are proud to be for tyranny :draper2


LMFAO at a Trump support saying that.


----------



## deepelemblues

When you declare that some ideas don't need to be debated, just suppressed, you're admitting:

1. That you're lazy
or
2. That you're incompetent
or
3. That you're a tyrant
or, most likely,
4. All three

Seriously how hard is it to argue against Nazism? Look how easy it is: Nazism tried its ideas and that resulted in lots of death and misery and the Nazis getting their asses kicked to a degree almost unmatched in history 

Lazy incompetent buffoons can't do that I guess so they'd rather be tyrants and not have to bother


----------



## CamillePunk

Just a reminder that Alex Jones, PJW, and Milo are not Nazis, white nationalists, pedophilia promoters, racists, or anything remotely close.  Carry on.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Just a reminder that Alex Jones, PJW, and Milo are not Nazis, white nationalists, pedophilia promoters, racists, or anything remotely close.  Carry on.


Alex Jones is 100% racist against demons from the higher dimensional planes who infiltrate earth to drink the blood of infants and TURN THE FRIGGIN FROGS GAY


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CamillePunk said:


> Just a reminder that Alex Jones, PJW, and Milo are not Nazis, white nationalists, pedophilia promoters, racists, or anything remotely close.  Carry on.


sorry grandpa you're just not hip to today's lingo. the definitions of these words have changed.

*racist (old meaning):*
anyone that views one race as inferior or superior to another.

*racist (new meaning):*
anyone that doesn't agree with democratic policies.

*nazi (old meaning)*:
member of the national socialist german workers party. famous for their authoritarian views and the imprisonment and genocide of over 6 million jews.

*nazi (new meaning):*
anyone that doesn't agree with democratic policies.


get with the times you racist nazi!


----------



## Tater

Some of us read 1984 and realized it was a warning, not a guide. Some of us aren't snowflake little bitches who need big brother and the thought police to stop thoughtcrime. Some of us put on our big boy pants and are capable of managing life without safe spaces.


----------



## skypod

deepelemblues said:


> When you declare that some ideas don't need to be debated, just suppressed, you're admitting:
> 
> 1. That you're lazy
> or
> 2. That you're incompetent
> or
> 3. That you're a tyrant
> or, most likely,
> 4. All three
> 
> Seriously how hard is it to argue against Nazism? Look how easy it is: Nazism tried its ideas and that resulted in lots of death and misery and the Nazis getting their asses kicked to a degree almost unmatched in history
> 
> Lazy incompetent buffoons can't do that I guess so they'd rather be tyrants and not have to bother




A nazi could get blistered with facts and look incompetent during a 5 hour debate live feed across the world and they would still have thousands of supporters in the US. You underestimate how deeply fucking stupid people are. How many people thought Obama was a Muslim from Kenya? Infact how many mouth-breathers STILL think that? 

The fact is people are satisfied with housing a "small amount" of white supremacists in their country, but in reality if you had any morals as a human being you wouldn't be satisfied with even one living in your country.


----------



## birthday_massacre

skypod said:


> A nazi could get blistered with facts and look incompetent during a 5 hour debate live feed across the world and they would still have thousands of supporters in the US. You underestimate how deeply fucking stupid people are. How many people thought Obama was a Muslim from Kenya? Infact how many mouth-breathers STILL think that?
> 
> The fact is people are satisfied with housing a "small amount" of white supremacists in their country, but in reality if you had any morals as a human being you wouldn't be satisfied with even one living in your country.


Just look at Trump and how he still has supporters.


----------



## virus21

> Parents in Germany who refuse to vaccinate their children against measles would be required to pay up to €2,500 ($2,800) in fines and their children would be thrown out of kindergarten, according to a draft law put forward by Health Minister Jens Spahn.
> 
> "I want to eradicate measles," Spahn told the mass circulation Bild am Sonntag paper. "All parents should be secure in the knowledge that their children will not be infected and endangered by measles."
> 
> Read more: Why measles is so deadly and vaccination so important
> 
> Germany's Robert Koch Institute believes that 93% of children have the necessary immunization. However, this is still short of the recommended 95% rate.
> 
> Spahn said the kindergarten ban would help protect children too young to receive any immunization shots.
> 
> "Kindergartens have children under 10 months of age, who are too young for vaccinations and are therefore especially threatened," Spahn told the paper.
> 
> Watch video02:51
> Germany's vaccination problem
> All by 2020
> 
> The bill has a different solution for parents of schoolchildren. Elementary education is mandatory in Germany, so the law would not be able to keep unvaccinated children out of schools. Instead, their parents would be required to pay the fine.
> 
> In addition to newborns, there are also older children whose health prevents them from getting immunized, such as organ recipients or people suffering from leukemia. Their parents would need to provide proof of the medical condition that prevents them from getting the vaccine.
> 
> By July 2020, other parents who attempt to sign up their children for kindergartens or schools would need to provide confirmation that their children have been vaccinated.
> 
> Vaccinations will also become mandatory for employees of hospitals and private medical practices.
> 
> Jens Spahn (CDU) (picture-alliance/dpa/K. Nietfeld)
> Health Minister Jens Spahn wants to boost the number of people immunized against measles
> 
> Infection rate skyrockets
> 
> The draft legislation is currently being discussed in the Cabinet. It is expected to be adopted this year and go into force in March 2020.
> 
> The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations have repeatedly called for action over a recent increase in measles outbreaks across the world. Measles killed 136,000 people last year, and the number of people infected with the disease surged by 50% compared to 2017.
> 
> Developed countries have also seen a rise in measles infections, partly due to a debunked claim that vaccines cause autism. Germany, which has seen large outbreaks in several of its states, registered 170 measles cases in the first two months of 2019.


https://www.dw.com/en/measles-german-minister-proposes-steep-fines-for-anti-vaxxers/a-48607873


----------



## deepelemblues

skypod said:


> A nazi could get blistered with facts and look incompetent during a 5 hour debate live feed across the world and they would still have thousands of supporters in the US. You underestimate how deeply fucking stupid people are. How many people thought Obama was a Muslim from Kenya? Infact how many mouth-breathers STILL think that?
> 
> The fact is people are satisfied with housing a "small amount" of white supremacists in their country, but in reality if you had any morals as a human being you wouldn't be satisfied with even one living in your country.


Grow up please. Your perspective is that of a child. That second paragraph, with its fist-drumming tantrum quality and snot dribbling from its nose. That first paragraph, with its complete lack of proportion or perspective. How are you going to purge your country of all people who believe things you find unacceptable? Since you aren't going to be satisfied unless they're all either dead or in some other country. Hundreds of millions of people in the US don't support Nazism, and you're moral panicking about "thousands of supporters." You're the 400 pound silverback gorilla panicking about the 2 inch long worm in the mud. Nazis and general "white supremacists" are losers incapable of achieving their goals. Stop elevating them to a position they don't occupy and certainly don't deserve.


----------



## skypod

deepelemblues said:


> Grow up please. Your perspective is that of a child. That second paragraph, with its fist-drumming tantrum quality and snot dribbling from its nose. That first paragraph, with its complete lack of proportion or perspective. How are you going to purge your country of all people who believe things you find unacceptable? Since you aren't going to be satisfied unless they're all either dead or in some other country. Hundreds of millions of people in the US don't support Nazism, and you're moral panicking about "thousands of supporters." You're the 400 pound silverback gorilla panicking about the 2 inch long worm in the mud. Nazis and general "white supremacists" are losers incapable of achieving their goals. Stop elevating them to a position they don't occupy and certainly don't deserve.



You say losers incapable of achieving their goals. Is someone who believed the thing from the first paragraph not POTUS right now? And you don't think people that believed that lie could have possibly voted him in? 

It's not even that I'm saying de-platforming should happen or that it works, as I think any conspiracy "white people are being purged!!" website is going to get as much traction whether its on some obscure website or its broadcast to millions. But saying it's going to make movements stronger if false. Its definitely a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. 

There's different levels to white supremacists and certainly spreads wider than the few who shoot up a Black church. People make the same argument about Muslims (0.00001% terrorists, a slightly larger amount hold extremist terrorist views, an even larger amount wish death on gay people etc.) It's the same circle with people who hold white supremacist views in the US. You can't possibly know the amount. A lot of people are quiet with their bigotry. But they can be emboldened quickly.


----------



## CamillePunk

The goals of Nazism are to spread suspicion of Barack Obama being a Kenyan Muslim. :lol Hitler's true master plan reveals itself 60 years later.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> A nazi could get blistered with facts and look incompetent during a 5 hour debate live feed across the world and they would still have thousands of supporters in the US. *You underestimate how deeply fucking stupid people are.* How many people thought Obama was a Muslim from Kenya? Infact how many mouth-breathers STILL think that?
> 
> The fact is people are satisfied with housing a "small amount" of white supremacists in their country, but in reality if you had any morals as a human being you wouldn't be satisfied with even one living in your country.


so what is your solution? purge the country of all it's stupid people?


----------



## Draykorinee

If you're actively engaging in printing criminal activity you should be banned.

If you're Alex Jones you should be allowed to bury yourself.

This whole banning scene is pathetic.


----------



## DesolationRow

Joe Biden declaring without a hint of irony just how knowledgeable he is concerning present foreign dignitaries and briefly naming the present U.K. prime minister "Margaret Thatcher" is one of the funniest moments of 2019 thus far. 

With Biden campaigning, just remember that *Gaffes Are Coming*. :mark:


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> Joe Biden declaring without a hint of irony just how knowledgeable he is concerning present foreign dignitaries and briefly naming the present U.K. prime minister "Margaret Thatcher" is one of the funniest moments of 2019 thus far.
> 
> With Biden campaigning, just remember that *Gaffes Are Coming*. :mark:


They're already here.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125181582912786433
Biden brags about his time in 'the hood'


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> They're already here.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125181582912786433
> Biden brags about his time in 'the hood'


And Democratic voters were thinking this guy was going to be the solution to Trump?!


----------



## Stinger Fan

skypod said:


> You say losers incapable of achieving their goals. Is someone who believed the thing from the first paragraph not POTUS right now? And you don't think people that believed that lie could have possibly voted him in?
> 
> It's not even that I'm saying de-platforming should happen or that it works, as I think any conspiracy "white people are being purged!!" website is going to get as much traction whether its on some obscure website or its broadcast to millions. But saying it's going to make movements stronger if false. Its definitely a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.
> 
> There's different levels to white supremacists and certainly spreads wider than the few who shoot up a Black church. People make the same argument about Muslims (0.00001% terrorists, a slightly larger amount hold extremist terrorist views, an even larger amount wish death on gay people etc.) It's the same circle with people who hold white supremacist views in the US. You can't possibly know the amount. A lot of people are quiet with their bigotry. But they can be emboldened quickly.


It's astounding that you're trying to compare the numbers of white supremacists to Islamic Extremists. For one, the numbers of white supremacists in the USA are in the single digit thousands , and not 63 million that you desperately want them to be. Also, there's a big big difference between the two, especially considering one has multiple armies in multiple countries that murder people around the world, while the other typically protests with tiki torches with the random 1 lunatic who kills someone . They are certainly not the same.


----------



## Miss Sally

skypod said:


> A nazi could get blistered with facts and look incompetent during a 5 hour debate live feed across the world and they would still have thousands of supporters in the US. You underestimate how deeply fucking stupid people are. *How many people thought Obama was a Muslim from Kenya? Infact how many mouth-breathers STILL think that? *
> 
> *The fact is people are satisfied with housing a "small amount" of white supremacists in their country, but in reality if you had any morals as a human being you wouldn't be satisfied with even one living in your country*.



Far less than there are Russiagaters. :x

I'd be happy to kick out white supremacists if we kicked out the black nationalists/supremacists, La Raza, those who follow hard line Islam, any and all supremacists and overly Religious types too. :smile2:


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> Joe Biden declaring without a hint of irony just how knowledgeable he is concerning present foreign dignitaries and briefly naming the present U.K. prime minister "Margaret Thatcher" is one of the funniest moments of 2019 thus far.
> 
> With Biden campaigning, just remember that *Gaffes Are Coming*. :mark:


Oh god, has he been discovered yelling at clouds yet?


----------



## CamillePunk

Tim Pool discusses social media censorship with lawyer and Human Events publisher Will Chamberlain, who has been arguing for "platform access as a civil right".


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Tim Pool discusses social media censorship with lawyer and Human Events publisher Will Chamberlain, who has been arguing for "platform access as a civil right".


It should be, it should be a privately owned public space. 

They don't want that though, because then they'd have to follow their own rules. 

Or they can stop the behind the scenes fuckery by messing with Social Media startups that don't tow the line.

Social Media has evolved beyond the laws.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> Social Media has evolved beyond the laws.


Technology in general has evolved beyond the capability of politicians to even completely grasp, much less effectively regulate.


----------



## Strike Force

Stinger Fan said:


> It's astounding that you're trying to compare the numbers of white supremacists to Islamic Extremists. For one, the numbers of white supremacists in the USA are in the single digit thousands , and not 63 million that you desperately want them to be.


You're probably low-balling the number of white supremacists, as the number of organizations is on the rise as KKK membership falls. That said, you're *absolutely right* in that comparing white supremacists to Islamic extremists is silly. There are TONS of Islamic extremists who act on their ridiculous beliefs in horrible, horrible ways.



Tater said:


> Technology in general has evolved beyond the capability of politicians to even completely grasp, much less effectively regulate.


If you want a good laugh, watch any Congressional hearing that involves politicians over the age of 40 discussing technology. Listen to Ted Stevens, who was the CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE AT THE TIME, try to explain net neutrality.


----------



## Stephen90

Stinger Fan said:


> It's astounding that you're trying to compare the numbers of white supremacists to Islamic Extremists. For one, the numbers of white supremacists in the USA are in the single digit thousands , and not 63 million that you desperately want them to be. Also, there's a big big difference between the two, especially considering one has multiple armies in multiple countries that murder people around the world, while the other typically protests with tiki torches with the random 1 lunatic who kills someone . They are certainly not the same.


Did you just try use a PragerU video to prove your point LOL?


----------



## Tater

Stephen90 said:


> Did you just try use a PragerU video to prove your point LOL?


The only time a PragerU vid should be used to prove a point is to prove the point that PragerU vids are fucking retarded. :lol


----------



## Stephen90

Tater said:


> The only time a PragerU vid should be used to prove a point is to prove the point that PragerU vids are fucking retarded. :lol


I do love watching them get debunked by other YouTube posters.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Tater said:


> The only time a PragerU vid should be used to prove a point is to prove the point that PragerU vids are fucking retarded. :lol





Stephen90 said:


> Did you just try use a PragerU video to prove your point LOL?


The reason I brought up the video, was the Pew Research Center statistics that were cited. Had you actually watched it and not dismissed it out right because you aren't a fan of who is providing the source of those statistics, you'd know why I posted it. My point still stands about the difference between the two, had you actually had anything of note to say you would have , instead of quickly dismiss my argument as soon as possible. 



Strike Force said:


> You're probably low-balling the number of white supremacists, as the number of organizations is on the rise as KKK membership falls. That said, you're *absolutely right* in that comparing white supremacists to Islamic extremists is silly. There are TONS of Islamic extremists who act on their ridiculous beliefs in horrible, horrible ways.


I remember hearing(my memory isn't great with politics stuff) about the number of actual white supremacists being pretty low. One of the things that was also brought up was the membership of the KKK . I can't remember exactly what the number suspected was by I think it was the ACLU or ADL(?) but it was in the lower thousands like under 10k. While more organizations could crop up, they likely wont stick around as there just isn't enough numbers to sustain these groups long term. Even if we say there's 100k, that's still out of 330+ million in the USA. That's nothing , they aren't this boogeyman they're made out to be, not anymore thankfully . Let them moan and complain to no one in particular , you don't give these morons any attention they'll die out on their own as it has been for the past several decades


----------



## Strike Force

Stinger Fan said:


> I remember hearing(my memory isn't great with politics stuff) about *the number of actual white supremacists being pretty low*. One of the things that was also brought up was the membership of the KKK . I can't remember exactly what the number suspected was by I think it was the ACLU or ADL(?) but it was in the lower thousands like under 10k. While more organizations could crop up, they likely wont stick around as there just isn't enough numbers to sustain these groups long term. *Even if we say there's 100k, that's still out of 330+ million in the USA.*


Oh, we agree that they're a fairly small percentage of the general population.

Defining "white supremacist" is a little tricky, however, since you don't need to be a card-carrying member of a KKK-esque organization to earn that title. I would bet that if every white person in America honestly answered an anonymous series of questions on the subject, the numbers might be surprisingly high, even in 2019. 

My last girlfriend before my current piece of trim was a white girl from rural Virginia, and her family was comfortable making racist comments even though I'm mixed race and right there. Are those people white supremacists? They're not running around in hoods, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts they believe white people are flat-out better, which to me qualifies.


----------



## Tater

Stinger Fan said:


> The reason I brought up the video, was the Pew Research Center statistics that were cited. Had you actually watched it and not dismissed it out right because you aren't a fan of who is providing the source of those statistics, you'd know why I posted it. My point still stands about the difference between the two, had you actually had anything of note to say you would have , instead of quickly dismiss my argument as soon as possible.


Pro Tip: If you want to use Pew Research Center statistic to support your argument, use said statistics instead of using a PragerU vid, which will get you laughed out of the room.

ositivity


----------



## Stephen90

Stinger Fan said:


> The reason I brought up the video, was the Pew Research Center statistics that were cited. Had you actually watched it and not dismissed it out right because you aren't a fan of who is providing the source of those statistics, you'd know why I posted it. My point still stands about the difference between the two, had you actually had anything of note to say you would have , instead of quickly dismiss my argument as soon as possible.


Then you use Pew Research instead of PragerU. That's like when people used to post Bill and Doug videos back in 07 and 08 to prove why TNA is better than the WWE.


----------



## DOPA

Bernie is getting clobbered on the issue of giving prisoners the right to vote. It's going to hurt him if he keeps bringing it up.


----------



## Tater

Deadhead said:


> Bernie is getting clobbered on the issue of giving prisoners the right to vote. It's going to hurt him if he keeps bringing it up.


He'd have been better off making the point that we need to end the war on drugs and release all the non-violent drug offenders so they can vote and be a part of society again. Restoring the right to vote for felons who have served their time and been released would have been good too. Regardless of where you stand on allowing prisoners to vote, it was still not a good political move on his part.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125891810595954688
Good thing we got USA Today to let us peasants know that eating lunch and personal grooming are non-essential.


----------



## ShiningStar

AJ Styles hair bill skews the personal grooming number


----------



## Kabraxal

Watching the “discussion” on this contempt hearing has been depressing... people are acting like fans at a wrestling event. Our political system is treated like a god damned sporting event. People are so fucking stupid. We are fucked.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Watching the “discussion” on this contempt hearing has been depressing... people are acting like fans at a wrestling event. Our political system is treated like a god damned sporting event. People are so fucking stupid. We are fucked.


Its not even a question if we are in a constitutional crisis. Its a joke they are even asking that. That term has been used for much less in the past.


----------



## birthday_massacre

David Pakman destroys Tim Pool lol






Pakman proves what a clown Pool is


----------



## CamillePunk

Another great Human Events article, this time penned by the very, very dangerous Paul Joseph Watson concerning his ban and social media censorship.  

https://humanevents.com/2019/05/08/facebook-calls-me-dangerous-imagine-my-shock-no-really/

They will continue to censor more and more moderate right-wing figures until you can't have an online presence unless you're a modern liberal. Only a sycophant or a fascist could think this was a good thing.


----------



## Kabraxal

CamillePunk said:


> Another great Human Events article, this time penned by the very, very dangerous Paul Joseph Watson concerning his ban and social media censorship.
> 
> https://humanevents.com/2019/05/08/facebook-calls-me-dangerous-imagine-my-shock-no-really/
> 
> They will continue to censor more and more moderate right-wing figures until you can't have an online presence unless you're a modern liberal. Only a sycophant or a fascist could think this was a good thing.


Given the media tries to portray sites like twitter as the majority already... not surprised they want to further skew the numbers in favour of the extreme minority.

Gotta love this world.


----------



## Draykorinee

Tim Pool said he made up the word subverse numerous times and in the same sentence says go look it up in the dictionary it's a redundant word from the 1500s. Was quite an hilarious self own.


----------



## CamillePunk

What a tedious point to focus on. :lol Betrays the intellectual dishonesty at work on the part of those trying to justify political censorship.


----------



## Stephen90

Jesus Christ this is what they're using to smear Bernie


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126328333535309825
:banderas


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> Jesus Christ this is what they're using to smear Bernie


If BernieOld is president, children will be roped into explaining their summer camp for TV broadcast socialist indoctrination schemes.

Horrible.

That's not America.

Just look at those awful production values, if BernieOld was on The Apprentice it would have been such a pleasure to tell him, "Grandpa, you're fired. Go back to your three houses."

- :trump3


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

deepelemblues said:


> If BernieOld is president, children will be roped into explaining their summer camp for TV broadcast socialist indoctrination schemes.
> 
> Horrible.
> 
> That's not America.
> 
> Just look at those awful production values, if BernieOld was on The Apprentice it would have been such a pleasure to tell him, "Grandpa, you're fired. Go back to your three houses."
> 
> - :trump3


the last thing i wanna see is bernie sanders win the nomination but i have to be honest i would take a sick pleasure in seeing trump and bernie go head to head in a series of debates :lol :lol


----------



## frecklearms72

I got this weird feeling that if Trump is impeeched or loses in next years election, Trump will not leave the White House willingly. I can just see him hanging onto his desk as people try and kick him out with him screaming "NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN'T KICK ME OUT, YOU KNOW WHO i AM????? CHECK CLINTON!!!!! SHE'S BEHIND ALL OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ShiningStar

I disagree entirely

If he loses the GOP echochamber will have a built in excuse,he didn't really lose it was because XYZ cheated and he is the real winner allowing him to save face and pretend he went 1 and 0. Both parties have been doing this for 3 decades


----------



## Tater

When you find out why Ben Shapiro is trending WW today...

:ha

What a dumbass snowflake. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126816217669488640


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> When you find out why Ben Shapiro is trending WW today...
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/rmFv3sL.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Ha" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> What a dumbass snowflake. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126816217669488640


Haha what a baby. 

He called Andrew Neil a lefty. Andrew Neil is a right as you get in the UK, he's Murdochs buddy, he rejects climate change, is a warmongering idiot who claimed hiv didn't cause aids and only gays can get it.

And this guy wrecked Shapiro haha.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> When you find out why Ben Shapiro is trending WW today...
> 
> :ha
> 
> What a dumbass snowflake. :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126816217669488640


Ben had to run and hide in his safe space


----------



## CamillePunk

Quite satisfying to see Ben Shapiro flounder after his recent duplicity and cowardice regarding the Covington kids incident.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

Tater said:


> When you find out why Ben Shapiro is trending WW today...
> 
> :ha
> 
> What a dumbass snowflake. :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126816217669488640


Cringe. 

Andrew Neil DESTROYS Ben Shapiro :buried

Neil has a pretty antagonistic interview style (to both left wing and right wing public figures) but this was pretty embarrassing from Shapiro. Instead of having a tantrum because he said the new abortion law introduced in Georgia were from the 'dark ages', why not just defend your position and explain why it's not. :shockedpunk

I thought he was supposed to be good at debating? lol


----------



## MrMister

Andrew Neil saying "there are not many bucks to be made on the BBC unlike American broadcasts" got a laugh out loud from me.

I was wondering when this ownage was going to start a good few minutes into the interview. But I kept watching. And I was rewarded.


----------



## DOPA

Ooof, not a good look for Shapiro :lol.

Andrew Neil during this interview to be honest did for the most part focus on gotcha questions rather than try to have a conversation or debate about the issues at hand. Didn't conduct this interview all that well me thinks. Having said that, to give context, he is a tough interviewer to both left and right wing guests so in that respects, you can't really call him biased. He just seems intent on getting one up on his interviewees a lot of the time which can be detracting. I also found it amusing that he tried to imply BBC is impartial :HA. I'll give him this, their biases aren't based on left vs right but rather are based on what the thoughts of the British establishment are. Hence why both Corbyn and Brexit get much more negative coverage than positive or neutral.

Having said that, Shapiro did not handle this well and ended up looking worse than Neil did by not answering the Georgia abortion question directly and instead calling out the intent of the interviewer himself....which to be fair he was half right on but it just made him look like a sourpuss. Not sure why he decided to handle the interview in this way. Then he just lost all his cool when AN quote mined him from past tweets and interviews. He played right into his hands honestly. Bad interview all around.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Deadhead said:


> Ooof, not a good look for Shapiro :lol.
> 
> Andrew Neil during this interview to be honest did for the most part *focus on gotcha questions rather than try to have a conversation or debate about the issues at hand.* Didn't conduct this interview all that well me thinks. Having said that, to give context, he is a tough interviewer to both left and right wing guests so in that respects, you can't really call him biased. He just seems intent on getting one up on his interviewees a lot of the time which can be detracting. I also found it amusing that he tried to imply BBC is impartial :HA. I'll give him this, their biases aren't based on left vs right but rather are based on what the thoughts of the British establishment are. Hence why both Corbyn and Brexit get much more negative coverage than positive or neutral.
> 
> Having said that, Shapiro did not handle this well and ended up looking worse than Neil did by not answering the Georgia abortion question directly and instead calling out the intent of the interviewer himself....which to be fair he was half right on but it just made him look like a sourpuss. Not sure why he decided to handle the interview in this way. Then he just lost all his cool when AN quote mined him from past tweets and interviews. He played right into his hands honestly. Bad interview all around.


So he basically gave Ben a taste of his own medicine, since that is what Ben always does to other people when claiming he is debating them.

Ben never directly answers any questions, he just goes into his talking points even when they dont answer the question asked. Its why he is a clown.

Its always why Ben why debate people like Sam Seder, David Pakman or Kyle Kulinski because he knows they would expose him, just iike this guy did.


----------



## BRITLAND

Christ, if Ben couldn't handle Andrew Neil, just imagine how he'd handle getting interviewed by Jeremy Paxman :lol


----------



## Tater

Draykorinee said:


> Haha what a baby.
> 
> He called Andrew Neil a lefty. Andrew Neil is a right as you get in the UK, he's Murdochs buddy, he rejects climate change, is a warmongering idiot who claimed hiv didn't cause aids and only gays can get it.
> 
> And this guy wrecked Shapiro haha.


Shapiro getting embarrassed by Andrew Neil is the equivalent of losing an intelligence contest to Forrest Gump. A quick glance into Neil shows just how much of a dumbass he is, which makes it all the more hilarious that "super smart" debate me bro had a triggered snowflake meltdown caused by him. :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Shapiro getting embarrassed by Andrew Neil is the equivalent of losing an intelligence contest to Forrest Gump. A quick glance into Neil shows just how much of a dumbass he is, which makes it all the more hilarious that "super smart" debate me bro had a triggered snowflake meltdown caused by him. :lmao


I have been telling this forum for years that Ben is not very bright and is a clown. This just proves it yet again.

All Ben is good is at talking fast his talking points while not being able to defend them when called out on them or for him to explain them in detail


----------



## Stinger Fan

That BBC interview with Ben Shapiro was disappointing. That interviewer really didn't want to have a conversation, which is kind of what Ben's known for . He seemed like he wanted to be combative with that abortion question. Especially as he tried to suggest that Ben wants to reinstate old laws and jail someone for abortion or seeking out of state abortions. It was a pretty dishonest way to present your guest and to have them on the defensive early on, its definitely when the interview started to go downhill. That's really the only thing I had a problem with, the rest was a good interview where Ben didn't look good,and wasn't prepared which he admitted so on twitter, so there's that. But something that's annoying is how he was seemingly offended that Ben Shapiro labeled Obama's address as fascist and that just because you don't like something doesn't mean its fascist , yet he has no issue re-tweeting someone who called Ben is an enabler of fascism . He's doing the very thing he accused Shapiro of doing and that it was a problem lol Oh well


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> That BBC interview with Ben Shapiro was disappointing. That interviewer really didn't want to have a conversation, which is kind of what Ben's known for . He seemed like he wanted to be combative with that abortion question. Especially as he tried to suggest that Ben wants to reinstate old laws and jail someone for abortion or seeking out of state abortions. It was a pretty dishonest way to present your guest and to have them on the defensive early on, its definitely when the interview started to go downhill. That's really the only thing I had a problem with, the rest was a good interview where Ben didn't look good,and wasn't prepared which he admitted so on twitter, so there's that. But something that's annoying is how he was seemingly offended that Ben Shapiro labeled Obama's address as fascist and that just because you don't like something doesn't mean its fascist , yet he has no issue re-tweeting someone who called Ben is an enabler of fascism . He's doing the very thing he accused Shapiro of doing and that it was a problem lol Oh well


LMFAO the interviewer did everything he could do have a conversation, Ben did not want to have one. Ben never wants to have a debate, like I said he is all about just falling back on his talking points, which are usually wrong and when he is called out for his bullshit, he does not know how to react because most times once he starts to cry about it, the other person backs off unlike this interviewer.

How was the abortion question combative? it should have been an easy question for Ben to answer but he got all butt hurt. 

He was asking Ben a question, if Ben did not believe in those things, all he had to do is say no, that is not what I am saying. How is that so difficult ? The only person who was dishonest was Ben especially since Ben lied about his tweets then got called out on it, was read them verbatim then he cried some more and ran away


----------



## CamillePunk

So a day or two (idk when that interview was recorded) after seemingly denying any authorship or relationship with the "Shapiro DESTROYS x" video titles, Ben retweeted this:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126971927682326529
TAKES A SLEDGEHAMMER TO :heston

My personal take on this is that the video titles are completely fine, they've become a meme, and self-promoting hyperbole is fair game in my view. The fact Ben denied it and threw a hissy fit just looks awful for him though.

This also isn't important at all lmao it's just funny to see the "we are above Trump, we are true conservatives who conduct ourselves honorably and with principle" people lose their cool.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> LMFAO the interviewer did everything he could do have a conversation, Ben did not want to have one. Ben never wants to have a debate, like I said he is all about just falling back on his talking points, which are usually wrong and when he is called out for his bullshit, he does not know how to react because most times once he starts to cry about it, the other person backs off unlike this interviewer.
> 
> How was the abortion question combative? it should have been an easy question for Ben to answer but he got all butt hurt.
> 
> He was asking Ben a question, if Ben did not believe in those things, all he had to do is say no, that is not what I am saying. How is that so difficult ? The only person who was dishonest was Ben especially since Ben lied about his tweets then got called out on it, was read them verbatim then he cried some more and ran away


You've misinterpreted what I'm saying. By conversation, I mean the way he's spoken on shows like the Dave Rubin Show, the Joe Rogan and Sam Haris podcasts and his Sunday Special show. Granted, I'm not saying the interview method was bad or anything(which you seem to think I was saying) but typically speaking, when people have a normal conversation, one party doesn't typically flat out refuse to answer the others question, and or out right ignore them. This was your regular TV interview, which Ben isn't quite as known for, for obvious reasons. He's more about the longer drawn out answer. Even in his clips when speaking on Campus and doing a Q&A unedited, they're very different than those "Ben Shapiro destroys" clips and aren't exactly indicative of how those go. As for as debating goes, he's stated that he prefers to just talk to people, instead of getting into debates and trying to "win", contrary to how he gets presented by his fans . Also, just look towards the people who he's "debated", he was on that Dr.Drew show(where he got threatened), Sam Haris, Blaire White, Cenk Uguyr , that radio panel he was on, his debate with Sally Kohn at politcon, hell he had Andrew Yang on his show just last month and should I bring up how he was labelled a misogynist cat caller for wanting to talk to AOC? I really think you're uninformed about Shapiro and its pretty obvious why lol, hell I haven't listened to his podcast in at least a year and a half if not longer, but I'm also not ignorant of the guy either. 

I already answered why it was combative in nature.It wasn't the question itself, it was the interviewer who was being dishonest in comparing what Shapiro actually believes in regards to abortion by trying to suggest Ben's in favor of jailing women for seeking out abortion. To suggest that he should have "answered no" would mean he was actually asked if he supported jailing women, but that's not what he was asked, the interviewer quickly moved to asking about why the heartbill bill wasn't "going backwards". It put him immediately on the defensive, and that's when the interview started to go downhill. I by no means am saying Ben looked great here, but I feel like the combative stance Ben took in response to that abortion question, could have easily been avoided and the interview would have gone a lot better. 

I'll say this in response to another post you've made, you've been trying to downplay Ben Shapiro so hard for this long and even went as far as purposely misquoting and cutting his sentences short(to make him look bad) because you're scared of the guy for whatever reason lol. Quite frankly though, I don't think there's ever been a conservative or right leaning person that you've ever given credit to or praise for anyway, but you going after Ben as hard as you do, is more of a compliment to him than anything else. The funny thing is, you've said stuff about Trump supporters being scared of Democrats because they talk down about certain popular ones and mock them but you do the very same thing with Trump and Ben Shapiro lol


----------



## deepelemblues

There was a lack of care for Ben's feelings by Andrew Neil

Shameful

...Oh

Pedants like Ben don't understand what you do with an Andrew Neil is simply throw his stuff back at him, which usually opens him up a little and he doesn't just go down his list of asshole questions and interruptions like he's 9 hours in on a 12 hour shift of clubbing baby seals

But pedants like Ben are so super smarty they think they can win while ignoring the rules of the particular game they're playing. Ben's rules are so much more smarty and betterer after all


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1127040792281767936
Oh no, liberal women not having sex, conservatives will _hate this!_ 

:heston


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm not abortion 'advocate' , it's probably as right as I get on the political spectrum, but these bills are going to send abortions in Georgia back to the dark ages where its done in back street clinics or at home.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> So he basically gave Ben a taste of his own medicine, since that is what Ben always does to other people when claiming he is debating them.
> 
> Ben never directly answers any questions, he just goes into his talking points even when they dont answer the question asked. Its why he is a clown.
> 
> Its always why Ben why debate people like *Sam Seder, David Pakman or Kyle Kulinski* because he knows they would expose him, just iike this guy did.


I always love how Ben's fans act like he above debating those guys while he debates random college kids.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Stinger Fan said:


> You've misinterpreted what I'm saying. By conversation, I mean the way he's spoken on shows like the Dave Rubin Show, the Joe Rogan and Sam Haris podcasts and his Sunday Special show. Granted, I'm not saying the interview method was bad or anything(which you seem to think I was saying) but typically speaking, when people have a normal conversation, one party doesn't typically flat out refuse to answer the others question, and or out right ignore them. This was your regular TV interview, which Ben isn't quite as known for, for obvious reasons. He's more about the longer drawn out answer. Even in his clips when speaking on Campus and doing a Q&A unedited, they're very different than those "Ben Shapiro destroys" clips and aren't exactly indicative of how those go. As for as debating goes, he's stated that he prefers to just talk to people, instead of getting into debates and trying to "win", contrary to how he gets presented by his fans . Also, just look towards the people who he's "debated", he was on that Dr.Drew show(where he got threatened), Sam Haris, Blaire White, Cenk Uguyr , that radio panel he was on, his debate with Sally Kohn at politcon, hell he had Andrew Yang on his show just last month and should I bring up how he was labelled a misogynist cat caller for wanting to talk to AOC? I really think you're uninformed about Shapiro and its pretty obvious why lol, hell I haven't listened to his podcast in at least a year and a half if not longer, but I'm also not ignorant of the guy either.
> 
> I already answered why it was combative in nature.It wasn't the question itself, it was the interviewer who was being dishonest in comparing what Shapiro actually believes in regards to abortion by trying to suggest Ben's in favor of jailing women for seeking out abortion. To suggest that he should have "answered no" would mean he was actually asked if he supported jailing women, but that's not what he was asked, the interviewer quickly moved to asking about why the heartbill bill wasn't "going backwards". It put him immediately on the defensive, and that's when the interview started to go downhill. I by no means am saying Ben looked great here, but I feel like the combative stance Ben took in response to that abortion question, could have easily been avoided and the interview would have gone a lot better.
> 
> I'll say this in response to another post you've made, you've been trying to downplay Ben Shapiro so hard for this long and even went as far as purposely misquoting and cutting his sentences short(to make him look bad) because you're scared of the guy for whatever reason lol. Quite frankly though, I don't think there's ever been a conservative or right leaning person that you've ever given credit to or praise for anyway, but you going after Ben as hard as you do, is more of a compliment to him than anything else. The funny thing is, you've said stuff about Trump supporters being scared of Democrats because they talk down about certain popular ones and mock them but you do the very same thing with Trump and Ben Shapiro lol












birthday massacre doesn't care about hates republicans.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You've misinterpreted what I'm saying. By conversation, I mean the way he's spoken on shows like the Dave Rubin Show, the Joe Rogan and Sam Haris podcasts and his Sunday Special show. Granted, I'm not saying the interview method was bad or anything(which you seem to think I was saying) but typically speaking, when people have a normal conversation, one party doesn't typically flat out refuse to answer the others question, and or out right ignore them. This was your regular TV interview, which Ben isn't quite as known for, for obvious reasons. He's more about the longer drawn out answer. Even in his clips when speaking on Campus and doing a Q&A unedited, they're very different than those "Ben Shapiro destroys" clips and aren't exactly indicative of how those go. As for as debating goes, he's stated that he prefers to just talk to people, instead of getting into debates and trying to "win", contrary to how he gets presented by his fans . Also, just look towards the people who he's "debated", he was on that Dr.Drew show(where he got threatened), Sam Haris, Blaire White, Cenk Uguyr , that radio panel he was on, his debate with Sally Kohn at politcon, hell he had Andrew Yang on his show just last month and should I bring up how he was labelled a misogynist cat caller for wanting to talk to AOC? I really think you're uninformed about Shapiro and its pretty obvious why lol, hell I haven't listened to his podcast in at least a year and a half if not longer, but I'm also not ignorant of the guy either.
> 
> l


Ben does not like debates because he knows people will just refute all the BS lies he tells, and that is why he hates that. And when people call him on his BS, he gets all flustered and falls apart like we saw here. That is why he prefers people like Rubin, Harris and Rogan because they will let him spout his BS and they won't point out why he is not being truthful. 

I am not uninformed about Ben at all, he is exactly what I have said he is, and this once again proved it. People like you just think he is smart because he can talk fast, but if you actually listen to what he says, its either non-sense of flat out lies. Just like this interview pointed out, and again when that was pretended to Ben he fell apart and ran away to his safe space.






Stinger Fan said:


> I already answered why it was combative in nature.It wasn't the question itself, it was the interviewer who was being dishonest in comparing what Shapiro actually believes in regards to abortion by trying to suggest Ben's in favor of jailing women for seeking out abortion. To suggest that he should have "answered no" would mean he was actually asked if he supported jailing women, but that's not what he was asked, the interviewer quickly moved to asking about why the heartbill bill wasn't "going backwards". It put him immediately on the defensive, and that's when the interview started to go downhill. I by no means am saying Ben looked great here, but I feel like the combative stance Ben took in response to that abortion question, could have easily been avoided and the interview would have gone a lot better.


The interviewer was not being dishonest, the only one being dishonest in this interview was Ben. The interviewer asked Ben if he was in favor of jailing women for seeking out abortion, all Ben had to do is answer the question. When Ben kept trying to dodge the question, the interviewer kept pressing him for the answer. That its what a good interviewer does. He does not let the person he is asking questions to ignore the question and get off topic, which is what Ben loves to do when he is trapped. 

The only reason you claim the interviewer was combative is because again he kept pressing Ben to answer the question which he was not doing. That is good journalism and the US needs a little more of this.




Stinger Fan said:


> I'll say this in response to another post you've made, you've been trying to downplay Ben Shapiro so hard for this long and even went as far as purposely misquoting and cutting his sentences short(to make him look bad) because you're scared of the guy for whatever reason lol. Quite frankly though, I don't think there's ever been a conservative or right leaning person that you've ever given credit to or praise for anyway, but you going after Ben as hard as you do, is more of a compliment to him than anything else. The funny thing is, you've said stuff about Trump supporters being scared of Democrats because they talk down about certain popular ones and mock them but you do the very same thing with Trump and Ben Shapiro lo


LOL at you claiming I am scared of Ben. This whole interview once again proves what I have been saying about it, that he is a joke, and when he is not debating college kids can bully around, he doesn't win. 

Where did I misquote Ben?




Stephen90 said:


> I always love how Ben's fans act like he above debating those guys while he debates random college kids.


yeah like I said above, its because Ben knows he can bully college kids that are not prepared but when Ben faces someone who actually can push back, he gets all flustered and falls apart, and loses the debate.

Ben is so easy to defeat in debates. just research his talking points and have counters to them. Ben is a shitty debater, all he does is fall back on his talking points and never directly answers the questions he is asked. So when he is pressed on them, this is what happens. 

This reminds me of that Crowder debate with that college kid that mopped the floor with him. 

Crowder is another one who says oh change my mind then wont debate anyone that he knows will mop the floor with him. He has been ducking Sam Seder for years


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1127288537219354624
:lol Conservative Twitter having too much fun today.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

There is something that film/TV production companies threatening to leave Georgia over the abortion bill don't understand. Them leaving won't have an effect on those that are for the bill.

The majority of Georgians that are for it live in suburban and rural areas. The film/TV production money is going to the urban areas like Atlanta. Not that they shoot everything there, but most of it is done there. Stuff in rural areas is like a 1-3 day shoot at most usually. If they leave those in urban blue areas will be affected. they will lose money, jobs, etc.

There's also that those for the abortion bill want them to leave. They see them as Hollywood elites and since they are primarily blue voters, if they leave then there will be less Democratic voters. For those that want this bill, the film/TV can't leave fast enough.


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> There is something that film/TV production companies threatening to leave Georgia over the abortion bill don't understand. Them leaving won't have an effect on those that are for the bill.
> 
> The majority of Georgians that are for it live in suburban and rural areas. The film/TV production money is going to the urban areas like Atlanta. Not that they shoot everything there, but most of it is done there. Stuff in rural areas is like a 1-3 day shoot at most usually. If they leave those in urban blue areas will be affected. they will lose money, jobs, etc.
> 
> There's also that those for the abortion bill want them to leave. They see them as Hollywood elites and since they are primarily blue voters, if they leave then there will be less Democratic voters. For those that want this bill, the film/TV can't leave fast enough.


You're confused, no one cares about the voters, its the money makers that matter, they worry about loss of billions in business.


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> There is something that film/TV production companies threatening to leave Georgia over the abortion bill don't understand. Them leaving won't have an effect on those that are for the bill.
> 
> The majority of Georgians that are for it live in suburban and rural areas. The film/TV production money is going to the urban areas like Atlanta. Not that they shoot everything there, but most of it is done there. Stuff in rural areas is like a 1-3 day shoot at most usually. If they leave those in urban blue areas will be affected. they will lose money, jobs, etc.
> 
> There's also that those for the abortion bill want them to leave. They see them as Hollywood elites and since they are primarily blue voters, if they leave then there will be less Democratic voters. For those that want this bill, the film/TV can't leave fast enough.


The people who are against abortion also literally view it as killing a human being, so it's unlikely they're going to change their minds because of economic impact. 

Now if only they had that same pro-life fervor when it came to our country's propensity to wage war and destabilize entire regions.


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1127288537219354624
> :lol Conservative Twitter having too much fun today.


Even funnier is most of the radical feminists probably don't have sex in the first place, so this will not be a big sacrifice


----------



## deepelemblues

If some large number of childbearing-age women went on a heterosexual sex strike to save their freedom to murder babies, murdering babies would pretty much not be an issue anymore. Since, you know, the number of women getting pregnant would drastically decrease


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


>


Sadly the thing thing is true with 90% of the things Trump tweets about.

You never know if its an onion article or if its something Trump really said, and sadly most of the time its really something Trump said and not an onion article.

that is how low its gotten


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Ben does not like debates because he knows people will just refute all the BS lies he tells, and that is why he hates that. And when people call him on his BS, he gets all flustered and falls apart like we saw here. That is why he prefers people like Rubin, Harris and Rogan because they will let him spout his BS and they won't point out why he is not being truthful.
> 
> I am not uninformed about Ben at all, he is exactly what I have said he is, and this once again proved it. People like you just think he is smart because he can talk fast, but if you actually listen to what he says, its either non-sense of flat out lies. Just like this interview pointed out, and again when that was pretended to Ben he fell apart and ran away to his safe space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interviewer was not being dishonest, the only one being dishonest in this interview was Ben. The interviewer asked Ben if he was in favor of jailing women for seeking out abortion, all Ben had to do is answer the question. When Ben kept trying to dodge the question, the interviewer kept pressing him for the answer. That its what a good interviewer does. He does not let the person he is asking questions to ignore the question and get off topic, which is what Ben loves to do when he is trapped.
> 
> The only reason you claim the interviewer was combative is because again he kept pressing Ben to answer the question which he was not doing. That is good journalism and the US needs a little more of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL at you claiming I am scared of Ben. This whole interview once again proves what I have been saying about it, that he is a joke, and when he is not debating college kids can bully around, he doesn't win.
> 
> Where did I misquote Ben?


If he doesn't like debates, he wouldn't have done them in the first place like he did at Politcon with Cenk Uguyr or Sally Kohn and I suppose to a lesser extent, that panel I mentioned, which mind you was 3 v 1 and he never got flustered by any means. There's a reason why you ignored my Politicon examples or AOC refusing to come on his show, because it doesn't suit your narrative. The reason why he among many prefer 1-2 hour long podcast isn't because they're "easier" and no one will disagree with him, its because they're better form of getting your point across when you don't have to worry about 5 minute tv time limit. These shows are better because it isn't about trying to one up someone else, its an actual conversation between two(or more) people who may or may not agree on an issue. You get better results when people aren't trying to "win" at something. The Andrew Yang episode of Ben's Sunday special(which you ignored)is one of his most successful episodes, and it wasn't a debate by any means. Also, the notion that Sam Haris and Joe Rogan give him a pass despite both disagreeing with him and both being on the complete opposite ends of the political spectrum , shows how little you know about all of this :lol . Again, if you actually bothered to watch his Q&A's you'd know he mentions all the time that debating isn't the best form to talk to someone and if you think he "bullies" college kids , it only further proves how little you actually know about what goes on in his videos, so stop trying to lie your way through this and act like you know everything 

Yes, the interviewer(or who gave him his information) was dishonest because it misrepresented Ben's beliefs as well as the heartbeat bill itself. He specifically says "a woman who miscarries can get 30 years", and "a Georgian woman who travels to another state for an abortion procedure could get 10 ten years" which both are false and purposeful misrepresentation of the bill . Here's a link explaining why that is . https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...l-will-not-imprison-women-who-have-abortions/ . I don't care if someone presses another person to answer a question, but I do have a problem when someone misrepresents another persons beliefs, which Ben Shapiro deals with all the time. I mean for crying out loud, he a Jew who gets called a Nazi. That's why he became combative , and assumed the interviewer was a leftist and went on the attack, which he was wrong for doing, he was ill prepared and owned up to losing. 

If you weren't scared and truly thought Ben was a nobody, you wouldn't be nearly as aggressive to get people to stop listening to him and think he's dumb :lol . You just hear "Ben is bad" from other people you agree with and follow them blindly. 

As far as misquoting him down below and I already rebutted you back then, I'm not doing it now so don't ask me to. 
https://www.wrestlingforum.com/70751994-post108.html


----------



## BRITLAND

UK General Election (Westminster) voting intention: LAB: 27% (-6) BREX: 20% (+6) CON: 19% (-4) LDEM: 14% (+7) CHUK: 7% (-2) GRN: 5% (+2) UKIP: 3% (-2) via @ComRes


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1127305995418574849
- Corbyn led Labour majority government
- SNP landslide in Scotland with Scots Labour and Scots Tories completely wiped out
- Lib Dems with 79 seats
- Farage's Brexit Party with 51 seats
- Greens double their seats to 2
- Conservatives reduced to 112 seats

:cenaooh

Theresa May, please please please call a general election and bring on the fuckery! opcorn


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> If he doesn't like debates, he wouldn't have done them in the first place like he did at Politcon with Cenk Uguyr or Sally Kohn and I suppose to a lesser extent, that panel I mentioned, which mind you was 3 v 1 and he never got flustered by any means. There's a reason why you ignored my Politicon examples or AOC refusing to come on his show, because it doesn't suit your narrative. The reason why he among many prefer 1-2 hour long podcast isn't because they're "easier" and no one will disagree with him, its because they're better form of getting your point across when you don't have to worry about 5 minute tv time limit. These shows are better because it isn't about trying to one up someone else, its an actual conversation between two(or more) people who may or may not agree on an issue. You get better results when people aren't trying to "win" at something. The Andrew Yang episode of Ben's Sunday special(which you ignored)is one of his most successful episodes, and it wasn't a debate by any means. Also, the notion that Sam Haris and Joe Rogan give him a pass despite both disagreeing with him and both being on the complete opposite ends of the political spectrum , shows how little you know about all of this :lol . Again, if you actually bothered to watch his Q&A's you'd know he mentions all the time that debating isn't the best form to talk to someone and if you think he "bullies" college kids , it only further proves how little you actually know about what goes on in his videos, so stop trying to lie your way through this and act like you know everything
> 
> Yes, the interviewer(or who gave him his information) was dishonest because it misrepresented Ben's beliefs as well as the heartbeat bill itself. He specifically says "a woman who miscarries can get 30 years", and "a Georgian woman who travels to another state for an abortion procedure could get 10 ten years" which both are false and purposeful misrepresentation of the bill . Here's a link explaining why that is . https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...l-will-not-imprison-women-who-have-abortions/ . I don't care if someone presses another person to answer a question, but I do have a problem when someone misrepresents another persons beliefs, which Ben Shapiro deals with all the time. I mean for crying out loud, he a Jew who gets called a Nazi. That's why he became combative , and assumed the interviewer was a leftist and went on the attack, which he was wrong for doing, he was ill prepared and owned up to losing.
> 
> If you weren't scared and truly thought Ben was a nobody, you wouldn't be nearly as aggressive to get people to stop listening to him and think he's dumb :lol . You just hear "Ben is bad" from other people you agree with and follow them blindly.
> 
> As far as misquoting him down below and I already rebutted you back then, I'm not doing it now so don't ask me to.
> https://www.wrestlingforum.com/70751994-post108.html


 Cenk destroyed Ben in that debate lol. Cenk showed all the flaws in Bens arguments. 

Also Ben was supposed to debate David Pakman at politician then Ben backed out.

As for debating AOC oh please she does not have time for that shit and he is a nobody. Its a joke you think some politician should go have to debate some hack like Ben because he has a podcast lol 

That is like saying Trump should have to debate Kyle Kulinski if Kyle called him out.

And Ben hates debates where he thinks he can't bully the person, its why he wont debate people like Kyle Kulinski , David Pakman, Sam Seder etc

Sam Harris and Joe Rogan are frauds just like Dave Rubin for not calling out his BS. 

Harris got a ton of shit for his interview with Ben for not challenging him. 

I think its you that doesn't know Ben if you don't think his thing is bulling college kids. lol He talks about doing it all the time. You really should live in reality dude

women can't get 30 years in jail in GA for miscarrying"?

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-30-years-prison-miscarriage-georgia-abortion-2019-5


That is not what his article says? It also says yes they can also go to jail for going out of state for an abortion.

It looks like you are the one being dishonest here.


and LOL it you think you rebutted me misquoting Ben even back then. You just keep proving over and over how dishonest you are.

Its just funny anyone can post quotes, tweets, or videos of Ben sayign something and you will claim I am misquoting him


----------



## Tater

Ben Shapiro is a retarded jackass.

Cenk Uygur, Sam Seder and David Pakman are also retarded jackasses.

:draper2


----------



## virus21

> VANCOUVER, Wash. (AP) — Parents in Washington state will no longer be able to claim a personal or philosophical exemption for their children from receiving the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine before attending a day care center or school under a measure signed Friday by Gov. Jay Inslee.
> 
> The state saw more than 70 cases of measles this year, and Inslee signed the bill at Vancouver City Hall, in the county where most of those cases were centered. The new law takes effect at the end of July.
> 
> Inslee said that while the bill was an important step in public health, he warned it doesn't do "everything necessary to protect the health of our most vulnerable citizens."
> 
> "We should be listening to science and medicine, not social media," he said. "It is science and truth that will keep us healthy rather than fear."
> 
> Parents no longer can claim personal, philosophical exemption for measles vaccine in Wash. (KOMO News)
> 
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that as of the end of last week, 764 cases of measles have been confirmed in 23 states.
> 
> Washington is among 17 states that allow some type of non-medical vaccine exemption for personal or philosophical beliefs. In addition, medical and religious exemptions exist for attendance at the state's public or private schools or licensed day-care centers. Medical and religious exemptions remain in place under the measure passed by the Legislature last month.
> 
> Unless an exemption is claimed, children are required to be vaccinated against or show proof of acquired immunity for nearly a dozen diseases — including polio, whooping cough and measles — before they can attend school or go to child care centers.
> 
> The state Department of Health said that 4% of Washington K-12 students have non-medical vaccine exemptions. Of those, 3.7% of the exemptions are personal, and the rest are religious.
> 
> While the Senate had first sought a bill that would have removed the philosophical exemption for all required childhood vaccines, both chambers ultimately agreed to move forward with the House bill that focused only on the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine — also known as MMR.
> 
> Parents opposed to the measures packed public hearings and the Washington state Capitol regularly with their children throughout the legislative session, which ended April 28. More than 30 parents, carrying signs that included slogans such as "Science is Never Settled," arrived outside City Hall ahead of Friday's bill signing.
> 
> Christie Nadzieja, of Vancouver, Washington, was one of three protesters inside during the ceremony who stood up and turned their backs to Inslee as he signed the bill.
> 
> "I'm for medical freedom and vaccine choice," said Nadzieja, who also livestreamed the signing on her cellphone.
> 
> Other parents were accompanied by their young children.
> 
> "We're just asking for the parental right to choose whether or not our children are vaccinated. We're not here to take away anybody else's right, whether they choose to vaccinate or not," said Kari Palomo, a parent from Vancouver, Washington.
> 
> "I've done my homework," said parent Carolyn Stirling, who opposes the vaccine. "I know what I'm talking about and i don't think it's a good idea."
> 
> She joined the demonstrations at the state capitol trying to fend of the legislation joined by the likes of Robert F Kennedy Jr., saying the science behind the vaccine is flawed.
> 
> "I can't in good conscience inject my son with polysorbate 80, which opens the blood brain barrier and aluminum hydroxide that attacks brain cells and destroys them. I'm not going to do it," Stirling said.
> 
> So Stirling says she's switching to a 'religious exemption' and believes others will, too.
> 
> "I'm sure many of them are going to switch over," she said. "It's pretty much the same idea, really. Whether you call it religion or call it your conscience or personal preference, it's just semantics."
> 
> The question is who makes the ruling on what's religious and what's not? Stirling says if they pull the religious exemption they'll pull their son out of public school. Several other parents have said the same thing.
> 
> Before mass vaccination, 400 to 500 people in the U.S. died of the measles every year. Serious complications include brain swelling that can cause blindness or deafness and pneumonia.
> 
> Early symptoms include a fever, runny nose and malaise, followed by a rash that starts around the head and moves down the body. Patients are contagious four days before and four days after getting the rash.
> 
> Nine out of 10 unvaccinated people who are exposed will get the disease. Someone who has no immunity can get sick up to three weeks after they have been exposed to the virus.
> 
> There was a surge in the anti-vaccine movement after a study in the late 1990s alleged a link between the measles vaccine and the rise of autism. The study has since been discredited and the researcher lost his medical license, but misinformation and fear persists.
> 
> California removed non-medical exemptions for all vaccines required for both public and private schools in 2015 after a measles outbreak at Disneyland sickened 147 people and spread across the U.S. and into Canada. Vermont abandoned its personal exemption in 2015.
> 
> Several other states are considering similar legislation, including Maine, Connecticut and neighboring Oregon, which saw a handful of cases tied to the Washington state outbreak.
> 
> In Clark County, Washington, the site of the recent measles outbreak, 15 of the 54 locations where people were exposed to the viral illness were at schools, said Alan Melnick, the county's public health director. Eleven people got measles due to exposure school, he added, and 800 children were banned from school because they hadn't been vaccinated or their vaccination status wasn't clear.
> 
> "Getting the vaccination rates up at schools is really essential in terms of protecting kids," Melnick said.


https://komonews.com/news/local/washington-state-limits-exemptions-for-measles-vaccine


----------



## deepelemblues

How does 27% of the vote result in 52% of the seats?


----------



## virus21

> Flint Mayor Karen Weaver listens on as Flint residents' questions are relayed during a community town hall meeting focused on restoring public trust on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at the Flint Public Library. “Here in Flint, we’ve been failed on every level and we know there is a lot that needs to be done to restore trust,” Weaver said. “We know it’s a critical time for voters to be tuned into their government. It’s a pivotal time for us to be involved in voting laws.” (Jake May | MLive.com)
> 
> 136
> 0 shares
> By Gus Burns | [email protected]
> 
> DETROIT -- Flint Mayor Karen Weaver asked employees to redirect charitable donors to a nonprofit fund she created shortly after taking office in 2015, an ex-city official testified during a federal whistleblower trial in Detroit on Wednesday, May 8.
> 
> Weaver, who took the stand briefly Wednesday and may testify further Thursday, said she created the fund at the recommendation of other mayors or advisers from across Michigan, including former Lansing Mayor Virgil Bernero and Lansing Bishop David W. Maxwell, who assisted in the fund’s creation.
> 
> The mayor testified that Lansing-based Martin Waymire public relations firm recommended she devote a half-day per week to soliciting funds by phone from business leaders and charitable foundation directors. Because she was unable to devote the time, the firm helped draft a solicitation letter, but Weaver said she never mailed it.
> 
> Weaver testified the fund was “no secret,” intended to offset travel costs incurred while she spread the word across the state and nation about “what was going on with the city of Flint."
> 
> “It couldn’t be secret if I was going to send out letters and make calls,” Weaver testified.
> 
> The mayor said she’d hoped to raise enough funds to compensate volunteers who assisted with the fund.
> 
> “At some point, I wanted to get Mr. Gilcreast paid,” Weavers said, referring to her close political adviser.
> 
> false
> Documents show Flint planned to pay mayoral advisor $120K a year
> 
> A series of emails, letters and a professional service agreement showed Weaver had plans to hire Aonie Gilcreast with an annual salary of more than $100,000 plus benefits with funds from the state, according to documents secured by The Flint Journal from a Freedom of Information Act request.
> 
> “They got slick,” said community activist and Weaver critic Arthur Woodson, who attended Wednesday’s hearing. “They were trying to steal the money.”
> 
> Amid the city’s water contamination crisis, Weaver issued an emergency declaration in December 2015, spurring an influx of donations. However, ex-Chief Financial Officer Jody Lundquist said the city wasn’t set up to receive tax-exempt donations.


https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/05/flint-mayor-asked-city-employees-to-divert-donations-to-her-nonprofit-witness-testifies.html


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.ktvz.com/news/national-world/harvard-professor-representing-weinstein-removed-as-faculty-dean/1077239931



> *Harvard professor representing Weinstein removed as faculty dean*
> 
> A Harvard University law professor who faced criticism on campus for representing Harvey Weinstein in his sexual assault trial is being relieved of his position as faculty dean of an undergraduate house.
> 
> Professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. and his wife, Harvard law lecturer Stephanie Robinson, will no longer be faculty deans of Winthrop House -- one of 12 undergraduate residential houses at the Boston-area university -- after their term ends June 30, Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana said.
> 
> The couple are the first black faculty deans in Harvard's history.
> 
> Khurana, in a letter explaining his decision not to renew the couple's deanships, wrote generally about a deteriorating climate in the 400-student house but did not specify the underlying issue.
> 
> "Over the last few weeks, students and staff have continued to communicate concerns about the climate in Winthrop House to the college. The concerns expressed have been serious and numerous," Khurana wrote.
> 
> "This decision in no way lessens my gratitude to them for their contributions to the college."
> 
> Sullivan made waves on campus in January when he decided to represent Weinstein, the former movie mogul whose downfall helped launch the #MeToo movement.
> 
> Sullivan and Robinson reacted to the decision in a statement to CNN:
> 
> "We are surprised and dismayed by the action Harvard announced today. We believed the discussions we were having with high level University representatives were progressing in a positive manner, but Harvard unilaterally ended those talks.
> 
> We will now take some time to process Harvard's actions and consider our options.
> 
> We are sorry that Harvard's actions and the controversy surrounding us has contributed to the stress on Winthrop students at this already stressful time."
> *
> Sullivan had told students that people deemed 'vile' deserve defense
> *
> Sullivan and attorney Jose Baez formally joined Weinstein's defense team in late January.
> 
> That same day, Sullivan sent a lengthy email to undergraduate students and resident tutors at Winthrop House, defending the idea of representing people deemed to be "guilty, unpopular, vile or undesirable."
> 
> "It is particularly important for this category of unpopular defendant to receive the same process as everyone else -- perhaps even more important," Sullivan wrote.
> 
> "To the degree we deny unpopular defendants basic due process rights we cease to be the country we imagine ourselves to be. In fact, most of the due process rights we hold dearest derive from lawyers who represented unpopular defendants."
> 
> The decision to represent a high-profile defendant in an assault case was fraught on Harvard's campus, where sexual assault and harassment have been a major issue.
> 
> Just in the past year, Harvard's head diving coach resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct, and a university government professor announced his retirement also over sexual misconduct allegations.
> 
> Sullivan is a longtime criminal defense attorney and criminal justice reform advocate. He represented the family of Michael Brown, who was fatally shot by police in Ferguson, Missouri, and he spent his early legal career at the Public Defender Service in Washington.
> 
> The tenured Harvard Law School professor also is the faculty director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute.
> 
> *Weinstein's trial begins later this year*
> 
> Weinstein is accused of raping a woman in a New York hotel room in 2013 and forcibly performing oral sex on another woman at his Manhattan apartment in 2006.
> 
> The former film executive faces five felony charges: two counts of predatory sexual assault, one count of criminal sexual act in the first degree, and one count each of first-degree rape and third-degree rape. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
> 
> Weinstein has denied all accusations of nonconsensual sex.
> 
> The trial is to begin September 9.
> 
> CNN's Eric Levenson and Augusta Anthony contributed to this report.


Yeah, fuck him for believing that the accused, no matter how vile, must receive a competent defense. It's only a pillar of the criminal justice system.

Would they be calling for his head if he was defending an obviously guilty run of the mill murderer? Guessing no.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.ktvz.com/news/national-world/harvard-professor-representing-weinstein-removed-as-faculty-dean/1077239931
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuck him for believing that the accused, no matter how vile, must receive a competent defense. It's only a pillar of the criminal justice system.
> 
> *Would they be calling for his head if he was defending an obviously guilty run of the mill murderer? *Guessing no.


Probably not since the run of the mill obviously guilty murderer wouldn't get all the bad press this trial could get Havard for one of their professors defending him.

Here is a question for you. If you were a defense attorney and you knew someone was guilty, of rape or murder, would you still defend them?

Its one thing if you are a public defender and you have to, but if you are able to choose would you?

This is only if you think the person is guilty, if you believe they are innocent that is a different story.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> Probably not since the run of the mill obviously guilty murderer wouldn't get all the bad press this trial could get Havard for one of their professors defending him.
> 
> Here is a question for you. If you were a defense attorney and you knew someone was guilty, of rape or murder, would you still defend them?
> 
> Its one thing if you are a public defender and you have to, but if you are able to choose would you?
> 
> This is only if you think the person is guilty, if you believe they are innocent that is a different story.


I'm sure there would be cases that would turn my stomach to the point I couldn't mount a defense, but if we're talking theoretical then, yes. I firmly believe that the accused has a right to a competent defense. For two reasons. 1. So, an innocent person doesn't go to prison or get the death penalty. 2. So, that a guilty person doesn't get set free on appeal for having shitty representation.

What are we supposed to do, only let the obviously innocent have good defense attorneys?


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> I'm sure there would be cases that would turn my stomach to the point I couldn't mount a defense, but if we're talking theoretical then, yes. I firmly believe that the accused has a right to a competent defense. For two reasons. 1. So, an innocent person doesn't go to prison or get the death penalty. 2. So, that a guilty person doesn't get set free on appeal for having shitty representation.
> *
> What are we supposed to do, only let the obviously innocent have good defense attorneys*?


That is not what I am saying, I was just hypothetically asking you, if you personally knew someone was guilty, would you defend them. I respect that you would still do it.

I personally would not, especially if it comes to something like rape or murder. There is always another lawyer who would. Yes guilty people have every right to a fair trial but i would not be able to live with myself if I got them off then they rape or murder another person.

i just think if I was a defense attorney I would pick and choose who I defend. It would be like if a defense lawyer had a personal rule of never defending anyone that works for the mob. Yes mobster deserve a defend but it does not have to be from me.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> That is not what I am saying, I was just hypothetically asking you, if you personally knew someone was guilty, would you defend them. I respect that you would still do it.
> 
> I personally would not, especially if it comes to something like rape or murder. There is always another lawyer who would. Yes guilty people have every right to a fair trial but i would not be able to live with myself if I got them off then they rape or murder another person.
> 
> i just think if I was a defense attorney I would pick and choose who I defend. It would be like if a defense lawyer had a personal rule of never defending anyone that works for the mob. Yes mobster deserve a defend but it does not have to be from me.


O.K., but what we're talking about here is punishing someone for making the choice you wouldn't. How long are the competent attorneys going to continue representing those that seem guilty when it can bite them in the ass like this?


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> That is not what I am saying, I was just hypothetically asking you, if you personally knew someone was guilty, would you defend them. I respect that you would still do it.
> 
> I personally would not, especially if it comes to something like rape or murder. There is always another lawyer who would. Yes guilty people have every right to a fair trial but i would not be able to live with myself if I got them off then they rape or murder another person.
> 
> i just think if I was a defense attorney I would pick and choose who I defend. It would be like if a defense lawyer had a personal rule of never defending anyone that works for the mob. Yes mobster deserve a defend but it does not have to be from me.





birthday_massacre said:


> How was that a deflection? And what is there to answer, you did not give any examples lol
> 
> I would not provide a service for one group then not for another. As long as I provide a service I would do it for anyone.


Here is a quote from you from the gay wedding case, I’m wondering how you can validate that post with you saying you wouldn’t defend someone who did something you were morally against.

To be honest I 100% agree with you about not defending someone who you knew did something against your morals. Hopefully now you can see that no one is entitled to your services and you are allowed to provide your services to whomever you wish.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> O.K., but what we're talking about here is punishing someone for making the choice you wouldn't. How long are the competent attorneys going to continue representing those that seem guilty when it can bite them in the ass like this?


Oh dont get me wrong. I am not saying Harvard is right for doing it. I even agreed with you, if it was some nobody they wouldn't care. But they think they will get a ton of bad press one of their Profs are defending him thus why they did it. 




blaird said:


> Here is a quote from you from the gay wedding case, I’m wondering how you can validate that post with you saying you wouldn’t defend someone who did something you were morally against.
> 
> To be honest I 100% agree with you about not defending someone who you knew did something against your morals. Hopefully now you can see that no one is entitled to your services and you are allowed to provide your services to whomever you wish.


Because being a lawyer is not a public service in the same way a bakery or like a food store or something like that are. Its a private entity. Apples and oranges.

if Harvey Weinstein wanted me to bake him a wedding cake I would

if you want to claim I am being hypocritical in this case then I guess I am. But not baking someone a wedding cake because they are gay is totally different than being a lawyer and picking and choose who you defend.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> if Harvey Weinstein wanted me to bake him a wedding cake I would


well that's weird


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> well that's weird


To be fair HW looks like he'd order a lot of cake.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Because being a lawyer is not a public service in the same way a bakery or like a food store or something like that are. Its a private entity. Apples and oranges.


Haha WHAT? 

How is owning a law firm and refusing service to one group different from owning a bakery and refusing service to one group?

I was unaware something privately owned was a public service. I thought public services are government funded things, like police officers, teachers, etc...

Either way you have admitted that you would pick and choose clients based on moral objections the same way the baker did. There is no difference, this is not apples and oranges.

You’re editing still pisses me off bc I type a response and then see your edits. Either way, both u and baker are objecting based off moral issues. The baker may have no problem defending the rapist or murderer. 

My point, other than your hypocrisy, is that as a private business owner, you are entitled to select who gets your services. I don’t agree with not serving to someone bc they are black or gay or whatever, but I agree it is your right to decide that. And it’s my right not to go to your business bc you discriminate. 

You wanna make HW a cake? Fine, I don’t agree with that but I back your right to decide that and I will exercise my free choice to not use your services. Rather simple really.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> Haha WHAT?
> 
> How is owning a law firm and refusing service to one group different from owning a bakery and refusing service to one group?
> 
> I was unaware something privately owned was a public service. I thought public services are government funded things, like police officers, teachers, etc...
> 
> Either way you have admitted that you would pick and choose clients based on moral objections the same way the baker did. There is no difference, this is not apples and oranges.
> 
> You’re editing still pisses me off bc I type a response and then see your edits. Either way, both u and baker are objecting based off moral issues. The baker may have no problem defending the rapist or murderer.
> 
> My point, other than your hypocrisy, *is that as a private business owner, you are entitled to select who gets your services.* I don’t agree with not serving to someone bc they are black or gay or whatever, but I agree it is your right to decide that. And it’s my right not to go to your business bc you discriminate.
> 
> You wanna make HW a cake? Fine, I don’t agree with that but I back your right to decide that and I will exercise my free choice to not use your services. Rather simple really.


I don't want to go down this road again, we have done it a million times, I will say oh so if you dont want to serve blacks in your store then..... then you will say what you always do then I will come back with what I always do. etc etc

Like I said, I dont consider it being the same thing but if you want to then in this case sure I am being hypocritical if that is the reasoning you want to use.

I just consider being lawyer and choosing cases is totally differs than baking a cake or serving someone at a diner.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> I don't want to go down this road again, we have done it a million times, I will say oh so if you dont want to serve blacks in your store then..... then you will say what you always do then I will come back with what I always do. etc etc
> 
> Like I said, I dont consider it being the same thing but if you want to then in this case sure I am being hypocritical if that is the reasoning you want to use.
> 
> I just consider being lawyer and choosing cases is totally differs than baking a cake or serving someone at a diner.


That’s fine and I really don’t think of you as hypocrite. I get that refusing to defend a murderer is a bit more Serious than serving a gay person or black person (if this makes sense to you). Like I said, my main point is about deciding who gets your services should be government free, you or I can disagree with why and not use that business. I’ll bow out now and let y’all get back to what y’all were discussing before I jumped in haha.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> That’s fine and I really don’t think of you as hypocrite. I get that refusing to defend a murderer is a bit more Serious than serving a gay person or black person (if this makes sense to you). Like I said, my main point is about deciding who gets your services should be government free, you or I can disagree with why and not use that business. I’ll bow out now and let y’all get back to what y’all were discussing before I jumped in haha.


Here is the one thing when it comes to being a lawyer, if you know the person is guilty, like if they told you so, you cannot ethically let them lie on the stand or let anyone else lie for them.

That is why the lawyer thing is apples in oranges in my mind.


----------



## BRITLAND

deepelemblues said:


> How does 27% of the vote result in 52% of the seats?


That's the beauty of First Past the Post for ya! :jericho3


----------



## Tater

blaird said:


> who gets your services should be government free


I generally side with the right to refuse service argument but I do think there should be instances where certain businesses have to provide service to all for safety reasons. I used to live in Arizona, so I know there are places where there is one gas station in the middle of nowhere desert and when leaving you will see a sign on the side of the road saying this is the last chance to get gas for however many hundred miles. If you're the owner of said gas station and you are an anti-gay Christian, you should not have the right to deny selling gas to a gay couple. Or, say a black person's car breaks down in the middle of nowhere desert and the only towing and mechanic services is owned by a racist. They should have to provide services to everyone who needs help, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter. There's a difference between a Christian bakery denying service to a gay couple, getting a wedding cake is not a life or death situation, and denying service that could legitimately put someone's personal safety at risk.

Would you agree with this?


----------



## FITZ

birthday_massacre said:


> That is not what I am saying, I was just hypothetically asking you, if you personally knew someone was guilty, would you defend them. I respect that you would still do it.
> 
> I personally would not, especially if it comes to something like rape or murder. There is always another lawyer who would. Yes guilty people have every right to a fair trial but i would not be able to live with myself if I got them off then they rape or murder another person.
> 
> i just think if I was a defense attorney I would pick and choose who I defend. It would be like if a defense lawyer had a personal rule of never defending anyone that works for the mob. Yes mobster deserve a defend but it does not have to be from me.


It's kind of hard to actually pick and chose who you defend based on if they're guilty or not. Aside from the fact that it wouldn't be a great business decision because you don't get a ton of people that are innocent charged with crimes by the time you become convinced that they're guilty it's probably too late.

If they're talking to you about the case you're already their lawyer and you don't get to just quit. You have to go through a process of withdrawing and your withdrawal has to be approved by the court and can't prejudice your client. 

And if you were to develop a pattern of withdrawing on clients once you realized they were guilty that would also be a problem. 



blaird said:


> Haha WHAT?
> 
> How is owning a law firm and refusing service to one group different from owning a bakery and refusing service to one group?
> 
> I was unaware something privately owned was a public service. I thought public services are government funded things, like police officers, teachers, etc...
> 
> Either way you have admitted that you would pick and choose clients based on moral objections the same way the baker did. There is no difference, this is not apples and oranges.
> 
> You’re editing still pisses me off bc I type a response and then see your edits. Either way, both u and baker are objecting based off moral issues. The baker may have no problem defending the rapist or murderer.
> 
> My point, other than your hypocrisy, is that as a private business owner, you are entitled to select who gets your services. I don’t agree with not serving to someone bc they are black or gay or whatever, but I agree it is your right to decide that. And it’s my right not to go to your business bc you discriminate.
> 
> You wanna make HW a cake? Fine, I don’t agree with that but I back your right to decide that and I will exercise my free choice to not use your services. Rather simple really.


You can discriminate on people based on if they're guilty or not. It's not a protected class. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Here is the one thing when it comes to being a lawyer, if you know the person is guilty, like if they told you so, you cannot ethically let them lie on the stand or let anyone else lie for them.
> 
> That is why the lawyer thing is apples in oranges in my mind.


Sort of. You can't call a witness if you know they're going to lie. But it's not up to you if your client testifies at trial. It's their right and if they want to testify they get to testify. 

You can ask the court to let your client testify in a narrative form, as in you just sit there and don't ask questions, but he still gets to go up there and lie.


----------



## blaird

Tater said:


> I generally side with the right to refuse service argument but I do think there should be instances where certain businesses have to provide service to all for safety reasons. I used to live in Arizona, so I know there are places where there is one gas station in the middle of nowhere desert and when leaving you will see a sign on the side of the road saying this is the last chance to get gas for however many hundred miles. If you're the owner of said gas station and you are an anti-gay Christian, you should not have the right to deny selling gas to a gay couple. Or, say a black person's car breaks down in the middle of nowhere desert and the only towing and mechanic services is owned by a racist. They should have to provide services to everyone who needs help, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter. There's a difference between a Christian bakery denying service to a gay couple, getting a wedding cake is not a life or death situation, and denying service that could legitimately put someone's personal safety at risk.
> 
> Would you agree with this?


It’s a slippery slope. I can agree that they should but there are prob some rare instances where I can see someone refuse service. Say you’re the owner of that gas station and someone comes in that assaulted you or your family, if you don’t wanna serve them I don’t think you should be forced to. I agree it would be a huge dick move to not serve someone and I’m sure there are exceptions, but I also believe 99.9% of people would make the right call if it came down to something like this. I actually couldn’t imagine anyone not helping out in a situation like this.



FITZ said:


> You can discriminate on people based on if they're guilty or not. It's not a protected


How can you determine their guilt if they don’t admit to it? If they don’t flat out say yea I did it, isn’t it your job to try your best to defend them no matter how the evidence stacks up?


----------



## FITZ

It's your job to defend them once you take them on as a client. 

Lots of lawyers do consultations with potential clients. If someone walks in and says "I raped a woman and I need you to help me beat this." You can say you're not interested, you can't share that information with anyone, and they never become your client. 

Of course someone probably won't point blank admit to it like that the first time meeting a lawyer. But let's say they come in, say they've been falsely accused, and they have cash to pay you. You take the case. They say they never touched the accuser. You make a few appearances in court and start working on the case. Then DNA comes back that his semen is in her vagina. Your client obviously lied to you and he's guilty. At that point, once you've already taken him on as a client, you don't get to just walk away. 

But the thing with representing guilty people is that most of the time you're just trying to get him a deal. You fight for what's best for them and in most cases that isn't going to trial. 

"You've got him on the charges. BUT he has kids, he has no record, he has a full time job that he works to support those kids" can make for good defense work. Or pointing out issues with the case to get a better deal is good defense work. Like on a big drug bust a defense attorney points out all the issues with search warrant. If they get the prosecutor even a little unsure if the search is good then they get a better deal. If a prosecutor offers 10 years, the defense lawyer shows some legitimate issues in the case and gets the offer dropped to 5 years that's good work. And it's not something that should make anyone lose sleep at night.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FITZ said:


> It's kind of hard to actually pick and chose who you defend based on if they're guilty or not. Aside from the fact that it wouldn't be a great business decision because you don't get a ton of people that are innocent charged with crimes by the time you become convinced that they're guilty it's probably too late.
> 
> If they're talking to you about the case you're already their lawyer and you don't get to just quit. You have to go through a process of withdrawing and your withdrawal has to be approved by the court and can't prejudice your client.
> 
> And if you were to develop a pattern of withdrawing on clients once you realized they were guilty that would also be a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> You can discriminate on people based on if they're guilty or not. It's not a protected class.
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of. You can't call a witness if you know they're going to lie. But it's not up to you if your client testifies at trial. It's their right and if they want to testify they get to testify.
> 
> You can ask the court to let your client testify in a narrative form, as in you just sit there and don't ask questions, but he still gets to go up there and lie.


If your client goes on the stand and lies, dont you have to report it to the court or will that fall under attorney client privilege and its just up to you ethically not to let them lie?



FITZ said:


> It's your job to defend them once you take them on as a client.
> 
> Lots of lawyers do consultations with potential clients. If someone walks in and says "I raped a woman and I need you to help me beat this." You can say you're not interested, you can't share that information with anyone, and they never become your client.
> 
> Of course someone probably won't point blank admit to it like that the first time meeting a lawyer. But let's say they come in, say they've been falsely accused, and they have cash to pay you. You take the case. They say they never touched the accuser. You make a few appearances in court and start working on the case. Then DNA comes back that his semen is in her vagina. Your client obviously lied to you and he's guilty. At that point, once you've already taken him on as a client, you don't get to just walk away.
> 
> But the thing with representing guilty people is that most of the time you're just trying to get him a deal. You fight for what's best for them and in most cases that isn't going to trial.
> 
> "You've got him on the charges. BUT he has kids, he has no record, he has a full time job that he works to support those kids" can make for good defense work. Or pointing out issues with the case to get a better deal is good defense work. Like on a big drug bust a defense attorney points out all the issues with search warrant. If they get the prosecutor even a little unsure if the search is good then they get a better deal. If a prosecutor offers 10 years, the defense lawyer shows some legitimate issues in the case and gets the offer dropped to 5 years that's good work. And it's not something that should make anyone lose sleep at night.



And yes a lot of the time a client you will defend will be guilty but its not something huge like oh he raped tons of women or he killed someone.

More times than not its for stuff like assault or a drug charge or something like that.

Like oh this guy was caught selling pot. Stuff like that i would have no problem defending, its moreso the stuff like rape, and even murder it would depend why they did it.

Like if a women murderer her husband because he was abusign her, I would also defend someone like that


----------



## Tater

blaird said:


> It’s a slippery slope. I can agree that they should but there are prob some rare instances where I can see someone refuse service. Say you’re the owner of that gas station and someone comes in that assaulted you or your family, if you don’t wanna serve them I don’t think you should be forced to. I agree it would be a huge dick move to not serve someone and I’m sure there are exceptions, but I also believe 99.9% of people would make the right call if it came down to something like this. I actually couldn’t imagine anyone not helping out in a situation like this.


That's absurd and you know it. You're conflating a criminal with a customer. If someone assaults you and your family, they are no longer a customer. They are a criminal and the cops get called and they go to jail.

It's not a slippery slope at all. If a reasonable case can be made for certain businesses that involve providing safety related services, then you pass a law saying if you own that kind of business, you cannot legally discriminate. No one is going to die if you don't sell them a cake. Someone _could_ die if their car breaks down in the middle of the desert and you refuse service to them as the only mechanic/towing service in the area. 

Also, no one is forcing a racist or a bigot to own a gas station or a tow truck. If they want to own a business that allows them to discriminate, get a business where it is legally allowed.


----------



## blaird

Tater said:


> That's absurd and you know it. You're conflating a criminal with a customer. If someone assaults you and your family, they are no longer a customer. They are a criminal and the cops get called and they go to jail.
> 
> It's not a slippery slope at all. If a reasonable case can be made for certain businesses that involve providing safety related services, then you pass a law saying if you own that kind of business, you cannot legally discriminate. No one is going to die if you don't sell them a cake. Someone _could_ die if their car breaks down in the middle of the desert and you refuse service to them as the only mechanic/towing service in the area.
> 
> Also, no one is forcing a racist or a bigot to own a gas station or a tow truck. If they want to own a business that allows them to discriminate, get a business where it is legally allowed.


It’s a bIt absurd and I agree it’s a rare circumstance. I’m not a fan of being forced to do something, but I understand where there are circumstances where someone is forced to do something they may not want to such as ER docs having to work on someone they may not agree with, but this isn’t that situation. I understand your scenario and may agree that this is one of those that should force the owner to possibly do something they are uncomfortable with, but is there no situation here where the owner can say “screw you call AAA?”


----------



## DOPA

This should give people in the US pause for concern.


----------



## deepelemblues

BRITLAND said:


> That's the beauty of First Past the Post for ya! :jericho3


That's what not having a two-party system does to ya, ahkshooally :draper2


----------



## Tater

blaird said:


> It’s a bIt absurd and I agree it’s a rare circumstance. I’m not a fan of being forced to do something, but I understand where there are circumstances where someone is forced to do something they may not want to such as ER docs having to work on someone they may not agree with, but this isn’t that situation. I understand your scenario and may agree that this is one of those that should force the owner to possibly do something they are uncomfortable with, but is there no situation here where the owner can say “screw you call AAA?”


That's another good scenario. if you are a racist ER doctor, you don't get to choose only treating the people with skin color you like. Treating everyone is in the job description. Same concept applies to every other scenario where the life and wellbeing of someone is at stake. If you choose that as your line of work, serving everyone without discrimination is in the job description. And yes, sometimes it is a comparable situation. If you had ever been broke down in the middle of the desert, you would understand. North America is a big place. Some places are in the middle of buttfuck nowhere.

You say you are not a fan of being forced to do something, well, no one is forcing anyone into a line of work where they do not get to discriminate. Right?


----------



## FITZ

birthday_massacre said:


> If your client goes on the stand and lies, dont you have to report it to the court or will that fall under attorney client privilege and its just up to you ethically not to let them lie?


You can't report them. If you do you're disbarred and anything you say can't be used against your client anyway. Unless they tell you something that involves imminent future injury or death you can't report them. "I'm going to murder my wife tonight." Go ahead and call the police. "In 2006 I murdered a man and buried a body in my backyard" you get disbarred if you report it and the whole conversation is privileged. 

You tell them they can't lie. If they testify and lie you can't report them. And you can't stop them from testifying.


----------



## blaird

Tater said:


> That's another good scenario. if you are a racist ER doctor, you don't get to choose only treating the people with skin color you like. Treating everyone is in the job description. Same concept applies to every other scenario where the life and wellbeing of someone is at stake. If you choose that as your line of work, serving everyone without discrimination is in the job description. And yes, sometimes it is a comparable situation. If you had ever been broke down in the middle of the desert, you would understand. North America is a big place. Some places are in the middle of buttfuck nowhere.
> 
> You say you are not a fan of being forced to do something, well, no one is forcing anyone into a line of work where they do not get to discriminate. Right?


Yes that is right. I know there are exceptions, would be dumb to think there aren’t. I would also hate to think someone would not help someone out bc they were gay or another race, in either of those situations.


----------



## Tater

blaird said:


> Yes that is right. I know there are exceptions, would be dumb to think there aren’t. I would also hate to think someone would not help someone out bc they were gay or another race, in either of those situations.


I hate to think it too but the world is full of shitty people. Such is life. I don't find it unreasonable to pass laws saying that you should be able to reliably count on certain services when your personal safety is at risk. There's freedom, then there's having a civilized society.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FITZ said:


> You can't report them. If you do you're disbarred and anything you say can't be used against your client anyway. Unless they tell you something that involves imminent future injury or death you can't report them. "I'm going to murder my wife tonight." Go ahead and call the police. "In 2006 I murdered a man and buried a body in my backyard" you get disbarred if you report it and the whole conversation is privileged.
> 
> You tell them they can't lie. If they testify and lie you can't report them. And you can't stop them from testifying.


So if they do lie on the stand , the best you can do is just recuse yourself from defending them right?


----------



## Strike Force

Tater said:


> if you are a racist ER doctor, you don't get to choose only treating the people with skin color you like. Treating *everyone* is in the job description.


Well, that's not true, but you're generally correct, and more importantly...



Tater said:


> You say you are not a fan of being forced to do something, well, *no one is forcing anyone into a line of work where they do not get to discriminate.* Right?


This is a key point. If you are considering pursuing a medical degree but you hate people that don't look like you, it might be prudent to consider a different profession.


----------



## FITZ

birthday_massacre said:


> So if they do lie on the stand , the best you can do is just recuse yourself from defending them right?


Nope. Mid-trial you're not going to be allowed off the case. You're stuck with them.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1128002899420827648
Pissed off Bill Nye is the best Bill Nye.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FITZ said:


> Nope. Mid-trial you're not going to be allowed off the case. You're stuck with them.


OH wow. Thanks


----------



## Deathstroke

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1128002899420827648
> Pissed off Bill Nye is the best Bill Nye.


So he has no solution either. :eyeroll



birthday_massacre said:


> OH wow. Thanks


Yep. Let's why lawyers make those consultations. Once you're in it, you're in it.


----------



## CamillePunk

"Nothing's free, grow the fuck up you idiots" Socialism BTFO by Bill Nye :banderas


----------



## Stephen90

Ben is still getting roasted .









Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tater

Sylar said:


> So he has no solution either. :eyeroll


The solution is the easy part. It's the implementation that's the hard part, because our government is corrupt and owned by oil oligarchs. If it wasn't, we'd have been working on fixing this problem for the past 40 years when scientists first figured it out. Had we done that, we could have gone through a gradual change over time and would not need to take drastic action now.



Stephen90 said:


> Ben is still getting roasted .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my VS835 using Tapatalk


When being an ignorant jackass catches up to you...


----------



## deepelemblues

Tater said:


> The solution is the easy part. It's the implementation that's the hard part, because our government is corrupt and owned by oil oligarchs. If it wasn't, we'd have been working on fixing this problem for the past 40 years when scientists first figured it out. Had we done that, we could have gone through a gradual change over time and would not need to take drastic action now.


40 years ago the problem was allegedly that an Ice Age was coming

I am unsure how trying to prevent "global warming" would have solved that

Thank God that governments are owned by oil oligarchs and not neo-Luddite Lysenkoists


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> 40 years ago the problem was allegedly that an Ice Age was coming
> 
> I am unsure how trying to prevent "global warming" would have solved that
> 
> Thank God that governments are owned by oil oligarchs and not neo-Luddite Lysenkoists


As per usual, you've got this completely backasswards. Investing in and creating new energy technologies is the opposite of Luddite thinking. It's the oil oligarchs who are the Luddites in this situation because they are the ones standing in the way of new technology. Destroying the environment is too profitable for them.


----------



## Twilight Sky

I guess no one is going to care, until Antarctica completely breaks up/melts and starts flooding places as a result. That's how things "work" on planet Earth. Give 0 fucks, til shit finally hits the fan.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

why do people automatically assume that oil tycoons want to destroy the environment? do people really think they're that shortsighted and that stupid? 

what good is a billion dollar fortune if the planet is a barren fucking wasteland? what do you think they have secret escape pods that will take them to mars or something? they have just as much skin in the game as anyone else. they have children and grandchildren too. it's in no one's best interest to "destroy the earth". 

or you could listen to what dan pena (billionaire investor) said. if global warming is such a certainty and sea levels are truly going to rise in 10-15 years, why are there are still so many powerful bodies investing in the real estate? why the fuck would some big bank or some big land developer dump millions - possibly billions - into cities along the coasts when those are gonna be the first to go under? why isn't there a clause protecting them against the impending doom of global warming? 

if the banks aren't afraid why are you? could it be that the people that high up _know_ it's all bullshit?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Harvard law professor Ronald Sullivan withdraws from Harvey Weinstein's defense team*


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> why do people automatically assume that oil tycoons want to destroy the environment? do people really think they're that shortsighted and that stupid?
> 
> what good is a billion dollar fortune if the planet is a barren fucking wasteland? what do you think they have secret escape pods that will take them to mars or something? they have just as much skin in the game as anyone else. they have children and grandchildren too. it's in no one's best interest to "destroy the earth".
> 
> or you could listen to what dan pena (billionaire investor) said. if global warming is such a certainty and sea levels are truly going to rise in 10-15 years, why are there are still so many powerful bodies investing in the real estate? why the fuck would some big bank or some big land developer dump millions - possibly billions - into cities along the coasts when those are gonna be the first to go under? why isn't there a clause protecting them against the impending doom of global warming?
> 
> if the banks aren't afraid why are you? could it be that the people that high up _know_ it's all bullshit?


Never underestimate the greed and stupidity of humankind.


----------



## deepelemblues

Tater said:


> Never underestimate the greed and stupidity of humankind.


Banalities aren't really a response :draper2

Give me an explanation as to why the bulk of adjustments of past temperature readings were downward adjustments, and why we should believe current climate models when previous climate models have consistently been proven wrong by contemporary adjustments of past temperature readings, and I'll reconsider

Please keep in mind that past models and temperature readings were presented with the same amount of confidence and used in the same bullying fashion - MUH 97%! - despite being inaccurate. 

Please keep in mind that from 2012-2014 the "scientific consensus" vociferously denied that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1998. Then, in 2015, the "scientific consensus" grudgingly admitted that yes, the data showed a "pause." Then, in 2016, the NOAA loudly announced that scientists the world over, the best and the brightest experts in the field, had re-examined and revised past temperature data readings because they were allegedly inaccurate, and presto change-o, suddenly a clear warming trend in the data appeared from 1998-2015

Why should current models and readings be trusted, when apparently the earth was cooler in the past than claimed at the time? The data and models then were presented with a level of absolute confidence. Just as they are today. Now, that previous level of absolute confidence is acknowledged to have been misplaced, but that :fact is handwaved away. Previous is the wrong word, because the same level of absolute confidence is exhibited in the presentation of contemporary computer models and temperature measurements

What happens when, in 15 years, the "consequences" of global warming have still failed to materialize, and the temperature readings being taken today are adjusted downwards, so 2035 can be proclaimed "the hottest year 'ever'"? Are you still going to trust in 97% OF SCIENTISTS AGREE?


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> Banalities aren't really a response :draper2
> 
> Give me an explanation as to why the bulk of adjustments of past temperature readings were downward adjustments, and why we should believe current climate models when previous climate models have consistently been proven wrong by contemporary adjustments of past temperature readings, and I'll reconsider
> 
> Please keep in mind that past models and temperature readings were presented with the same amount of confidence and used in the same bullying fashion - MUH 97%! - despite being inaccurate.
> 
> Please keep in mind that from 2012-2014 the "scientific consensus" vociferously denied that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1998. Then, in 2015, the "scientific consensus" grudgingly admitted that yes, the data showed a "pause." Then, in 2016, the NOAA loudly announced that scientists the world over, the best and the brightest experts in the field, had re-examined and revised past temperature data readings because they were allegedly inaccurate, and presto change-o, suddenly a clear warming trend in the data appeared from 1998-2015
> 
> Why should current models and readings be trusted, when apparently the earth was cooler in the past than claimed at the time? The data and models then were presented with a level of absolute confidence. Just as they are today. Now, that previous level of absolute confidence is acknowledged to have been misplaced, but that :fact is handwaved away. Previous is the wrong word, because the same level of absolute confidence is exhibited in the presentation of contemporary computer models and temperature measurements
> 
> What happens when, in 15 years, the "consequences" of global warming have still failed to materialize, and the temperature readings being taken today are adjusted downwards, so 2035 can be proclaimed "the hottest year 'ever'"? Are you still going to trust in 97% OF SCIENTISTS AGREE?


I could explain to you how evolution is a real thing and that the planet is not flat as well and it would achieve about the same level of scientific understanding from you.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

they can't even predict the weather correctly from day to day but they know what's going to take place in 15-20 years?

sure.


----------



## virus21

Shocked that this hasn't been posted


> The Alabama State Senate just passed a near-total abortion ban in a 25 to 6 vote. The legislation provides no exceptions for rape or incest.
> 
> The bill now heads to Governor Kay Ivey, a Republican. If she signs it, the bill will become law. Up until Tuesday she has withheld public comment on the legislation.
> 
> The legislation -- House Bill 314, "Human Life Protection Act" -- bans all abortions in the state except when "abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk" to the woman, according to the bill's text. It criminalizes the procedure, reclassifying abortion as a Class A felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison for doctors.
> 
> Trending News
> Tariff Fact Check
> Iran Tensions Escalate
> Trampoline Park Dangers
> Which State Is Best?
> "It's a sad day in Alabama," said Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton in the debate leading up to the vote. "You just said to my daughter, you don't matter, you don't matter in the state of Alabama."
> 
> After the bill passed, Lieutenant Governor Will Ainsworth voiced his support for the measure.
> 
> "With liberal states approving radical late-term and post-birth abortions, Roe must be challenged, and I am proud that Alabama is leading the way," Ainsworth tweeted on Tuesday night.
> 
> Alabama's ban is the latest in an onslaught of state-level anti-abortion measures that activists hope will be taken up by the Supreme Court and potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that protects a woman's right to the procedure. Last week, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law the state's so-called "fetal heartbeat" bill, a measure that will prohibit abortions after a heartbeat is detected in an embryo, which is typically five to six weeks into a pregnancy, and before most women know that they're pregnant. The state was the sixth to pass such a law, and the fourth this year alone.
> 
> Abortion rights advocates have promised to challenge Alabama's controversial legislation if Ivey signs the bill into law.
> 
> "We will not stand by while politicians endanger the lives of women and doctors for political gain," wrote Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, in an email to CBS News following the vote. "Know this, Governor Ivey: If you sign this dangerous bill into law, we will see you in Court"
> 
> But the bill's sponsor, Representative Terri Collins, said that's the point. The state lawmaker called the bill a "direct attack" on Roe v. Wade and anticipates that the bill will be contested by abortion rights advocates, like the ACLU, and potentially make its way to the high court.
> 
> "The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in the womb is not a person," Collins said last week when the Alabama House debated the legislation. "This bill addresses that one issue. Is that baby in the womb a person? I believe our law says it is."
> 
> The legislation will take effect six months after Ivey gives the bill her signature.
> 
> Alabama state lawmakers also compare abortions in the U.S. to the Holocaust and other modern genocides in the legislation, prompting Jewish activists and abortion rights groups to rebuke the legislation as "deeply offensive."
> 
> Singleton proposed an amendment that would have carved out an exception for victims of rape and incest. During debate he introduced three women who were victims of rape and told his colleagues, "They didn't ask for what they got. It happened. And now they're having to live with it."
> 
> The amendment ultimately failed, with 21 Senators voting against the rape and victim exception and 11 voting in favor of it.
> 
> Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant," a statement that garnered a mixture of groans and cackles from the chamber's gallery.
> 
> "In a state that has some of the worst health outcomes for women in the nation-such as the highest rate of cervical cancer -- Alabama is putting women's lives at an even greater risk," said Dr. Leana Wen, President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, in an statement emailed to CBS News on Tuesday night. "Politicians who say they value life should advocate for policies to solve the public health crises that are killing women, not dismantle what little access to health care Alabamians have left."


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-abortion-law-passed-alabama-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-for-rape-or-incest-2019-05-14/?&ampcf=1


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> they can't even predict the weather correctly from day to day but they know what's going to take place in 15-20 years?
> 
> sure.


It is not surprising in the least that someone who does not understand the difference between weather and climate would be ignorant of science.


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> Berzerker's Beard said:
> 
> 
> 
> they can't even predict the weather correctly from day to day but they know what's going to take place in 15-20 years?
> 
> sure.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not surprising in the least that someone who does not understand the difference between weather and climate would be ignorant of science.
Click to expand...

"It snowed in april this year and you expect me to think the world's warmer "


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> "It snowed in april this year and you expect me to think the world's warmer "


Its just funny how the same usual suspects deny climate change yet something like 8 of the past 10 years have been the hottest years for the planet on record.

its also funny how they ignore all the storms and how they are progressively getting worst year over year when they bring up weather.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Its just funny how the same usual suspects deny climate change yet something like 8 of the past 10 years have been the hottest years for the planet on record.
> 
> its also funny how they ignore all the storms and how they are progressively getting worst year over year when they bring up weather.


Records also only date back to about 150 years, it's easy to mislead someone when you don't actually mention that, let alone how old the earth is. It's also very misleading when people don't mention that the earth has been significantly hotter in the past than we're experiencing today and they don't need record keeping for that either. The earth (on average) mind you, in 150 years has gotten less than 1 degree Celsius warmer . How hot is the earth meant to be? How much do humans actually impact? Questions that no one actually has the answer to

Also, its not actually known 100% for sure if storms are directly linked to climate change, let alone climate change caused by humans, there have been articles stating as such. There's also evidence of the solar system impacting earths weather, but no one seems to talk about that for some reason. 

Getting into the climate science field is a great career option, regardless of the outcome, you can just say "well , its climate change , give me funding".


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Records also only date back to about 150 years, it's easy to mislead someone when you don't actually mention that, let alone how old the earth is. It's also very misleading when people don't mention that the earth has been significantly hotter in the past than we're experiencing today and they don't need record keeping for that either. The earth (on average) mind you, in 150 years has gotten less than 1 degree Celsius warmer . How hot is the earth meant to be? How much do humans actually impact? Questions that no one actually has the answer to
> 
> Also, its not actually known 100% for sure if storms are directly linked to climate change, let alone climate change caused by humans, there have been articles stating as such. There's also evidence of the solar system impacting earths weather, but no one seems to talk about that for some reason.
> 
> Getting into the climate science field is a great career option, regardless of the outcome, you can just say "well , its climate change , give me funding".


keep igrnong science its what you do best


----------



## FriedTofu

Regardless of where you stand on climate change, is it that hard to agree on creating less waste and less pollution? Geez.


----------



## Tater

Is it too late to abort Alabama from the USA?


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> keep igrnong science its what you do best


:lol So that's how you choose to go about it eh? The only person who willfully denies science when it suits them, has always been you. You openly deny the basic science of when a human life begins, which has always been, conception. So cut the crap about you caring about science. If you actually read what I wrote, I never once said climate change wasn't in some part, caused by humans. What I did do ,was ask you questions that you, I and the science community has no real answer to. If you did, you'd have answered them. Instead you chose to change what I wrote because you didn't like the fact that I called you out for purposely misleading things as well as asking questions, which mind you is very unscientific to shout down people who ask questions. 

So, could you please stop making stuff up , then say others do the same? That would be great....


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> Getting into the climate science field is a great career option, regardless of the outcome, you can just say "well , its climate change , give me funding".


Come on man don't be ridiculous, you're better than that. Are climate scientists getting tons of money, do they get more than non-renewable energy big wigs?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> It is not surprising in the least that someone who does not understand the difference between weather and climate would be ignorant of science.


why are banks still giving out 30 year mortgages if the world is going to be under water in half that time?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Stinger Fan said:


> :lol So that's how you choose to go about it eh? The only person who willfully denies science when it suits them, has always been you. You openly deny the basic science of when a human life begins, which has always been, conception. So cut the crap about you caring about science. If you actually read what I wrote, I never once said climate change wasn't in some part, caused by humans. What I did do ,was ask you questions that you, I and the science community has no real answer to. If you did, you'd have answered them. Instead you chose to change what I wrote because you didn't like the fact that I called you out for purposely misleading things as well as asking questions, which mind you is very unscientific to shout down people who ask questions.
> 
> So, could you please stop making stuff up , then say others do the same? That would be great....


BM:

"I am on the side of science"

Also BM:

"A person's sex is their choice"


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> why are banks still giving out 30 year mortgages if the world is going to be under water in half that time?


The entire premise of your question is retarded. It assumes the banks choose making smart long term investment decisions over short term profit and it includes a false claim regarding the effects of climate change.

Why did the banks tank the economy a decade ago? Why did they take the taxpayer bailouts and line their own pockets while fucking over homeowners? Why are they doing all the same shit now that tanked the economy last time?

I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand but humans often make very bad decisions based on greed.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> The entire premise of your question is retarded. It assumes the banks choose making smart long term investment decisions over short term profit and it includes a false claim regarding the effects of climate change.
> 
> Why did the banks tank the economy a decade ago? Why did they take the taxpayer bailouts and line their own pockets while fucking over homeowners? Why are they doing all the same shit now that tanked the economy last time?
> 
> I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand but humans often make very bad decisions based on greed.


the banks fucked over the economy because they knew they would get bailed out by washington. this has nothing to do with that.

they aren't going to lend money if they have foreknowledge the fucking world is going to be under water in 15 years and there's zero chance of them ever seeing ROI. 

if the world was going to end, you wouldn't be hearing it from bill nye. :lol


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> the banks fucked over the economy because they knew they would get bailed out by washington. this has nothing to do with that.
> 
> they aren't going to lend money if they have foreknowledge the fucking world is going to be under water in 15 years and there's zero chance of them ever seeing ROI.
> 
> if the world was going to end, you wouldn't be hearing it from bill nye. :lol


No one, is claiming, the world, is going, to be, underwater, in 15 years. fpalm

If you are going to make retarded arguments against climate science, at least educate yourself on what the actual scientists have to say about it. Saying, _herpa derpa the banks would stop doing business if climate change is real!!_, does not make you look as clever as you think it does.

There is no debate over whether humans are destroying the environment. No one should waste their time arguing with someone over accepting scientific fact. The only debate that should be taking place is what to actually do about it.

If you want to let your ignorance and/or ideology get in the way of accepting reality, then don't be surprised when you continue getting mocked. If, however, you want to have a real discussion over the best way to transition from fossil fuel energy to clean energy, then that is a discussion worth having.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Tater said:


> No one, is claiming, the world, is going, to be, underwater, in 15 years. fpalm
> 
> *No one huh?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to make retarded arguments against climate science, at least educate yourself on what the actual scientists have to say about it. Saying, _herpa derpa the banks would stop doing business if climate change is real!!_, does not make you look as clever as you think it does.
> 
> There is no debate over whether humans are destroying the environment. No one should waste their time arguing with someone over accepting scientific fact. The only debate that should be taking place is what to actually do about it.
> 
> If you want to let your ignorance and/or ideology get in the way of accepting reality, then don't be surprised when you continue getting mocked. If, however, you want to have a real discussion over the best way to transition from fossil fuel energy to clean energy, then that is a discussion worth having.
> *
> Are YOU a scientist or are you just regurgitating what you heard? Because if your only argument is "the scientists say..." then there are scientists that disagree with you.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
> 
> I know I know... they aren't as smart as your scientists. But hey there's also a "debate" among scientists as to whether or not gender is a choice.*


bolded.


----------



## AlphaBeta

Good science makes accurate predictions. Pseudoscience makes failed predictions.

Astronomy, cosmology, psychics, geology -- these fields all have a long history of being right about things. They are credible fields that accurately describe reality.

Climate change is more comparable to astrology, phrenology, and ufology. It doesn't make accurate predictions, and it can't be falsified. No properly-educated individual can sensibly label it science. It's political ideology which leeches off of the prestige of the label science. I mean, look at the thread title we're having this discussion in: The Official Political Discussion Thread. That's not a coincidence.

*The Big List Of Failed Climate Change Predictions - Watts Up With That?*

It goes beyond catastrophic failed predictions, of course. Climate change alarmists often behave as if they don't believe a damn word they say. We all remember the climate summit where attendees showed up in private jets and limousines. We know many climate change alarmists are wealthy and live in luxurious homes with enormous carbon footprints. Some climate alarmists even own yachts.

And what about the 97% consensus?

First of all, that number is highly dubious, but even if it's not, who cares? Science isn't a democracy. Science is ruled by observable evidence and logical interpretation. You can have a billion scientists supporting one position. All it takes is one man with a single superior argument to trump all of them. In fact, that's how almost all scientific advancements have been throughout history: one man with a new, superior idea, against a consensus defending the status quo.

And why wouldn't the overwhelming majority of climate scientists support climate change? It's the fundamental dogma of the entire field. If you go to university to study anything climate-related, guess what? You're going to be indoctrinated with climate change alarmism, and you're going to be ostracized, possibly even oppressed, if you deviate from that view. It's not hard to develop a consensus in those conditions. For Christ's sake, religions have used the exact same strategy for years. The fact that 97% of climate scientists support climate change is no surprising, and no more evidence of its truthfulness, than the fact that 99.4% of Iran supports Islam. Indoctrination works, kids. That's why it's used.

I will remain a climate change skeptic until climate alarmists start making accurate predictions, and start behaving like they believe what they're saying. Until then, they can take their "science~!!!" nonsense and stick it where the sun doesn't shine (which should be Earth according to climate change predictions.

Now, with all of that said, I'm all for keeping the planet clean. It's still our home, after all. Our home needs taken care of. The problem with climate "solutions" is that they often have significant economical consequences. Sorry, but we're not going to ruin the economy so scare-mongering idiots who've been shouting *the end is neigh!* for 60 years now can sneak in their nutty socialism (whose implementation actually would mean the end is neigh, ironically). Sensible solutions only, thank you.


----------



## AlphaBeta

Physics, not psychics. JFC.


----------



## CamillePunk

Yeah it's a pretty common talking point among progressives and liberals right now that the world is literally *ending* in 12 years. I live on the coast in the most liberal part of the country. Despite what people say in the coffee shops and on the college campuses, nobody here is living their lives like the world is ending in 12 years. :lol In fact, most of the people leaving California right now do it because of high taxes (imagine how high they'll be if something like the Green New Deal passes :shocked, not because of climate change concerns.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1128797750353485824
:mj4 Seen so many bad takes today trying to link the pro-life movement to WHITE SUPREMACY, the boogeyman of left-wing politics these days.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> bolded.


It's amusing that the scientifically illiterate person cannot figure out how to use the quote function. :lol

Also, :lol @ quoting AOC. She's not a scientist and that is not what the scientists are saying. I thought you would have understood that I was talking about scientists and not idiot politicians but I suppose I gave you too much credit. Next time I will bring the crayons.

Like I said, I am not going to argue the science with you for the same reason I do not try to explain to a creationist that the world is older than 6000 years and evolution is real. It's a pointless waste of time. Either you accept reality or you do not. You shouldn't need a science degree to understand pollution is bad. All you need is a little common sense.

But, again, if you would be interested in discussing new technologies and how we transition to them, that would be a conversation worth having. Even if you cannot accept the science around climate change, you should at least be able to understand that developing new technology is a good thing. Why would you not want free energy sources? Why would you want to continue paying nonstop for fossil fuel energy when nature provides it for free? Sunlight is free. Wind is free. After the infrastructure is built, the energy provides itself and we take power out of the hands of oil oligarchs. That can only be a good thing for society as a whole. 

You know what else it would do? It would go a long ways towards ending wars. The endless wars in the Middle East are for control of fossil fuels. The reason the USA is trying to topple the government of Venezuela is for control of fossil fuels. If ending wars is something you care about, ending our reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source should be of interest to you.

Something else you should consider... while the rest of the world is developing new energy technologies, the USA is continuing to invest in old energy technologies. Whether or not you understand the science of climate change, you should at least be able to understand what it would mean for the USA to fall behind the rest of the world in new tech. All the old energy and military tech in the world is not going to help the USA when we cannot keep with up with the rest of the world in new energy technologies.

The point is, there is a lot more to this conversation than just the climate science itself. You don't have to accept climate science to understand that clinging to old tech while the rest of the world invests in new tech will not lead to good outcomes for those stuck in the past.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Tater said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not surprising in the least that someone who does not understand the difference between weather and climate would be ignorant of science.
> 
> 
> 
> why are banks still giving out 30 year mortgages if the world is going to be under water in half that time?
Click to expand...

I've read some dumb stuff before but I think this takes the biscuit. Just mega stupid.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> I've read some dumb stuff before but I think this takes the biscuit. Just mega stupid.


i mean you guys keep insisting this, but you haven't provided a legitimate counter argument at all. just "derp this is stupid derp".

the big lenders and the big land developers are clearly betting _against_ global warming. if they aren't afraid... why should anyone else be?


----------



## Strike Force

Stinger Fan said:


> You openly deny the basic science of when a human life begins, which has always been, conception.


Let's try to deal in reality, not fantasy. Science has never PROVEN that human life begins at conception. That's a human debate that has merit on both sides. Don't act as if you have some indisputable scientific evidence on that side, because you don't, and neither does the opposition. It's a debate of semantics and splitting hairs, but to act as though science has produced something that definitively proves you right, on either side, is simply false.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> why are banks still giving out 30 year mortgages if the world is going to be under water in half that time?


This might be the dumbest post in WF history, and that's saying something.


----------



## Stinger Fan

yeahbaby! said:


> Come on man don't be ridiculous, you're better than that. Are climate scientists getting tons of money, do they get more than non-renewable energy big wigs?


I was only half joking to be honest, but its a can't miss job if ever there was one in the science fields. Anyway, it is true that if someones research(in any field) doesn't show positive results, they'll get their funding pulled and lose their job. Besides, its not as if scientists haven't at the very least, mislead the public before 



Strike Force said:


> Let's try to deal in reality, not fantasy. Science has never PROVEN that human life begins at conception. That's a human debate that has merit on both sides. Don't act as if you have some indisputable scientific evidence on that side, because you don't, and neither does the opposition. It's a debate of semantics and splitting hairs, but to act as though science has produced something that definitively proves you right, on either side, is simply false.


I mean, this conversation was about climate change but I'll respond to you on this. There really isn't much room, if any for interpretation on when life begins, its been a scientific fact for many years now. People who say its not a life, is willfully ignoring this because those people don't want to have to deal with what an abortion actually is, taking a human life away. If people had more courage to just state that they believe its a right, and not try to dance around that false arguments, I'd almost be willing to respect that person a little more. Then again, there are people who believe 9 months is perfectly acceptable to abort because its "not a human" even then And I'm considered the horrible person in all of this....

"When Human Life Begins
American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

*The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.* At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species **** sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins."

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/hhs-defines-life-beginning-conception/
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html


----------



## Strike Force

Stinger Fan said:


> There really isn't much room, if any for interpretation on when life begins, its been a scientific fact for many years now. People who say its not a life, is willfully ignoring this because those people don't want to have to deal with what an abortion actually is, taking a human life away. If people had more courage to just state that they believe its a right, and not try to dance around that false arguments, I'd almost be willing to respect that person a little more. Then again, there are people who believe 9 months is perfectly acceptable to abort because its "not a human" even then *And I'm considered the horrible person in all of this*....


This is a fair counterpoint! And I don't believe anyone should be considered a "horrible person" no matter where they fall on this debate, simply because it's so fraught. Personally, I believe a woman should have the right to choose up until halfway through the pregnancy, but I can see the argument on both sides. Neither is right or wrong.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah it's a pretty common talking point among progressives and liberals right now that the world is literally *ending* in 12 years. I live on the coast in the most liberal part of the country. Despite what people say in the coffee shops and on the college campuses, nobody here is living their lives like the world is ending in 12 years. :lol In fact, most of the people leaving California right now do it because of high taxes (imagine how high they'll be if something like the Green New Deal passes :shocked, not because of climate change concerns.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1128797750353485824
> :mj4 Seen so many bad takes today trying to link the pro-life movement to WHITE SUPREMACY, the boogeyman of left-wing politics these days.


Pretty soon they'll try to link education to white supremacy.. Oh wait.. They tried that already. Yes, stay dumb, don't learn from the ebil white men, all you need to know comes from us. ONE OF US! ONE OF US! :laugh:

I seen an Occupy Democrat meme that I hope to God was a photoshop because if not it's retarded. It was something like if they renamed schools to uterus that Conservatives would care about dead children.. Except pro-choice says that abortion isn't about aborting children, in fact a fetus isn't a child. Yet their "witty" meme says otherwise. :serious:

We need moar abortion because of climate change but we need more immigration because of population decline... Can these people get on the same damn page? :quite

World will end in 12 years? Wow haven't Religious people been predicting this for centuries? This time it will happen, just you wait everyone! :laugh:


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Strike Force said:


> This is a fair counterpoint! And I don't believe anyone should be considered a "horrible person" no matter where they fall on this debate, simply because it's so fraught.* Personally, I believe a woman should have the right to choose up until halfway through the pregnancy*, but I can see the argument on both sides. Neither is right or wrong.


That is 20 weeks... seems long, but i think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence.

To me, gun control, and abortion(except for the extremists) are two things that people would surprisingly be willing to come to a compromise more than not.

Question for you.. as this is part of the conversation is one I am interested in your opinion....

You say a woman should choose.. what about for fathers who want to have the baby.... Do you think they should have any say at all?


----------



## Deathstroke

I've long thought there should be some kind of protection for fathers in place that want to take the child.

Granted only under the presumption that the mother would be allowed to sign away all rights and responsibilities of the child away to the father so it's as if she never had it at all.

Only speaking if she didn't want it, of course.


----------



## Eric Fleischer

virus21 said:


> Shocked that this hasn't been posted
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-abortion-law-passed-alabama-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-for-rape-or-incest-2019-05-14/?&ampcf=1



Rape and incest is just a "good ol' Saturday night" in Alabama.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> That is 20 weeks... seems long, but i think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence.
> 
> To me, gun control, and abortion(except for the extremists) are two things that people would surprisingly be willing to come to a compromise more than not.
> 
> Question for you.. as this is part of the conversation is one I am interested in your opinion....
> 
> You say a woman should choose.. what about for fathers who want to have the baby.... Do you think they should have any say at all?


The time frame for abortion is pretty simple. It should be allowed for as long as the fetus cannot survive outside the womb on it's own.



Eric Fleischer said:


> Rape and incest is just a "good ol' Saturday night" in Alabama.










[/IMG]


----------



## AlphaBeta

*Non-citizens commit 42% of federal crimes, despite being 7% of population*

The border wall will not only do wonders for America's economy, it will led to a plummet in crime rate. Too bad democrats care more about rigging elections with illegal alien votes than improving America.


----------



## yeahbaby!

This whole thing about when life starts for a foetus etc is beside the point. It's about giving or taking away people's right and freedom to do what they want with their own bodies.

These legislators will stand up in front of the Stars and Stripes, hand on heart and drone on and on about Freedom in the USA, but they only want their type of freedom.


----------



## Tater

yeahbaby! said:


> This whole thing about when life starts for a foetus etc is beside the point. It's about giving or taking away people's right and freedom to do what they want with their own bodies.
> 
> These legislators will stand up in front of the Stars and Stripes, hand on heart and drone on and on about Freedom in the USA, but they only want their type of freedom.


When they say they want religious freedom, what they mean is that they want the freedom to force everyone else to live by their religion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> When they say they want religious freedom, what they mean is that they want the freedom to force everyone else to live by their religion.


It is ironic are we are pretty much getting Christian Sharia law


----------



## CamillePunk

"Shia law". :mj4


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

i mean it's pretty extreme legislation. i could understand banning late term abortions, but abortions entirely? even in the instance of rape? that seems incredibly harsh. 

i believe in a god and a higher being, and i believe life is precious... but i also think people should have the freedom to choose. so long as it's done before there's a beating heart.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> "Shia law". :mj4












Shia law is comin' for YOU!


----------



## CamillePunk

The cuckery. :heston Bernie surrendering all leverage before the primaries even begin.


----------



## deepelemblues

BernieOld has forgotten that as a good Red, you never enter a popular front unless you are in charge :cudi


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> The cuckery. :heston Bernie surrendering all leverage before the primaries even begin.


Next they'll have two chickens surrendering to each other in acts of..... cluckery.

:heston
:heston
:heston
:heston


----------



## deepelemblues

Someone should hop in their time machine and bring Shakespeare to 2019

The play he would write about :trump and the clown car of other 2016 GOP candidates, and Hillary and the election and Russia, and the clown car of 2020 Democratic candidates :banderas

Imagine, :trump tweets and remarks adapted to blank verse wens3


----------



## Tater

That awkward moment when you look into Biden's history and realize he is even worse and further to the right than Hillary... :lol

If Biden vs Trump is the best the USA can do, it doesn't deserve to survive as a nation.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> That awkward moment when you look into Biden's history and realize he is even worse and further to the right than Hillary... :lol
> 
> If Biden vs Trump is the best the USA can do, it doesn't deserve to survive as a nation.


We can do better. Sadly we aren't given better, the masses don't demand better and will keep voting in party lines like sheep.


----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


> We can do better. Sadly we aren't given better, the masses don't demand better and will keep voting in party lines like sheep.


Your second sentence contradicts the first. A lot of what is wrong with the USA is the fault of the ruling elite but there comes a point where you have to put some of the blame on the sheeple who passively accept the ever increasingly fascist government they allow themselves to be ruled by. The people in France have been rioting for months because they were losing things Americans never had in the first place. Americans need to put on some yellow vests of their own and get out in the streets if they want to create real change. They won't fix anything by voting as long as their only choices are a giant pile of shit and an even bigger pile of shit.


----------



## DOPA

Unbelievable, even before the 2020 process begins Bernie is appeasing to the Democratic Party establishment, the people who stole the primaries from him the first time.

If this isn't evidence that Bernie isn't the right guy for progressives to get behind to fight for their issues, I have no idea what is. He has no backbone.

#VoteTulsi.


----------



## Strike Force

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i believe in a god and a higher being, and i believe life is precious... but i also think people should have the freedom to choose. so long as it's done before there's a beating heart.


A heartbeat is often detectable before a woman even knows she's pregnant, so no, that standard won't work. Just ask women in Georgia.



DMD Mofomagic said:


> You say a woman should choose.. what about for fathers who want to have the baby.... Do you think they should have any say at all?


Interesting, difficult question...I believe the father should have no say in whether a woman chooses to have an abortion but SHOULD have legal rights to the child if 

(A) the child was conceived legally and consensually (no rape/incest),
(B) the mother is willing to carry the baby to term, and 
(C) the mother is willing to sign over all legal/custodial rights to the father.

A father should have rights to a child before it's put up for adoption, but that's about it.

Unfortunately, we're limited by biology. Women are (and should) be in control of what happens with their bodies. Once you start granting power to the men, it's a very slippery slope.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> The cuckery. :heston Bernie surrendering all leverage before the primaries even begin.


Yikes!

I remember when people were giving you crap for your anti-Bernie stance and hailing him as a hero. The same happened with AOC.. Bernie exposing himself is funny even if it makes me a little sad. :laugh:


----------



## deepelemblues

This old fart can't handle anything tougher than passing clouds and people seriously thought and still think he would endure six months of :trump lambasting him in a general election campaign :heston

Not only endure, but triumph easily. My goodness


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> The time frame for abortion is pretty simple. It should be allowed for as long as the fetus cannot survive outside the womb on it's own.


Eh, maybe.

Like I said the two extremes (abortion up to 9 months, and no abortions ever!) both seem to be in the minority IMO.

I am of the thought process that the majority of people would agree with what you are saying in a vacuum, but some type of time has to be put on it.


----------



## deepelemblues

Technically no one can survive on their own until they're 7 or 8 or so, somewhere around there. And even then most of them wouldn't make it

Don't see too many infants or 5 year olds able to provide food and shelter and safety for themselves.


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> Yikes!
> 
> I remember when people were giving you crap for your anti-Bernie stance and hailing him as a hero. The same happened with AOC.. Bernie exposing himself is funny even if it makes me a little sad. :laugh:


I don't know if people just didn't grow up with strong male role models or what. Maybe children of single moms? It's so easy to see Bernie for what he is for me. :lol


----------



## Stinger Fan

deepelemblues said:


> Technically no one can survive on their own until they're 7 or 8 or so, somewhere around there. And even then most of them wouldn't make it
> 
> Don't see too many infants or 5 year olds able to provide food and shelter and safety for themselves.


You shouldn't bring common sense into arguments. I mean, whats next? You're going to mention coma patients and people who are on life support too? My favorite argument is healthcare is a basic human right , but the right to life isn't . That's some next level hypocrisy. Another "great argument" is if you're pro life, but are in favor of the death penalty, then you're a hypocrite. Because pro life must mean for every scenario(even though the discussion is only ever about abortion) and that serial killer rapists, and a baby are comparable in any way :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

There's no room for reason in arguments that are literally constructed for the sake of siding with irresponsible women. :lol It's a purely biological argument, and by that I DON'T mean based in biological facts, I mean many of the men pretending these arguments have any sense are executing a biological strategy of acquiring access to eggs by coddling hysterical women. Little do they know they still aren't gonna get laid for it. :heston


----------



## Miss Sally

Stinger Fan said:


> You shouldn't bring common sense into arguments. I mean, whats next? You're going to mention coma patients and people who are on life support too? My favorite argument is healthcare is a basic human right , but the right to life isn't . That's some next level hypocrisy. Another "great argument" is if you're pro life, but are in favor of the death penalty, then you're a hypocrite. Because pro life must mean for every scenario(even though the discussion is only ever about abortion) and that serial killer rapists, and a baby are comparable in any way :lol


I'm pro-choice but the reason most of the other pro-choicers refuse to call the fetus alive or a child is simply to neglect responsibility and justify their actions.

They cannot take the moral high ground if they accept they took a life. How else can they brow beat others and pass judgement from their progressive soapboxes if they're guilty themselves?

Give these types the opportunity to get their hands dirty and actually see what they'll be terminating, especially a fetus that's fairly developed and most wouldn't do it. Yet why? It's only flesh, it's not even alive! :laugh:

I believe it's up to the mother to decide if she wants an abortion but at least own up to what it entails. Rather than trying to convince yourself it means nothing by refusing to acknowledge the truth. :shrug


----------



## deepelemblues

If a fetus inside a human woman's womb isn't human then what is it

It has human DNA

I can't seem to find a "fetus" species in any of the databases

No other animal whose young gestate in the womb is posited to have this dichotomy where the fetus is not the same species as the born. A deer fetus, for example, is not held to not be a deer

Just another example of human exceptionality I suppose :draper2

But acknowledging that a human fetus is human presents a dilemma to some. If it's human, you can't kill it just because you want to. So to those some, it simply cannot be human. What it is doesn't matter, what matters is that it isn't human


----------



## Tater

It's not the role of the government to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their own body. Short of taking every pregnant woman and strapping them to a bed for 9 months, there is no law that will stop them from getting an abortion if that's what they want to do. Ban abortion clinics and they'll go to some back alley hack or try to do it themselves. Abortion bans do not save lives. All they do is kill more pregnant women seeking an abortion because they do not have access to safe means.

But the abortion bans aren't really about saving lives, are they? They're about controlling women. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit or lying to themselves. The very same people who want to ban abortions don't give a flying fuck what happens to the baby after it's born. They're too busy telling the whore mother to get a job and defunding every program that would help the mother support the baby.

Or as Carlin said, if you're preborn, you're fine, if you're preschool, you're fucked.


----------



## CamillePunk

A fetus is not a woman's body. Invalid.

The "they'll do it anyway!" argument can be applied to literally anything the government bans, including rape, theft, and murder. Invalid. 

The "pro-lifers don't want to take care of the baby!" argument can be applied to justify allowing mothers to murder their infants/toddlers as well. Invalid.

Next.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> It's not the role of the government to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their own body. Short of taking every pregnant woman and strapping them to a bed for 9 months, there is no law that will stop them from getting an abortion if that's what they want to do. Ban abortion clinics and they'll go to some back alley hack or try to do it themselves. Abortion bans do not save lives. All they do is kill more pregnant women seeking an abortion because they do not have access to safe means.
> 
> But the abortion bans aren't really about saving lives, are they? They're about controlling women. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit or lying to themselves. The very same people who want to ban abortions don't give a flying fuck what happens to the baby after it's born. They're too busy telling the whore mother to get a job and defunding every program that would help the mother support the baby.
> 
> Or as Carlin said, if you're preborn, you're fine, if you're preschool, you're fucked.


----------



## CamillePunk

Just because an argument is funny doesn't make it valid.


----------



## deepelemblues

A series of ad hominems aren't an argument, they're just Tater sperging out

Comedians engaging in a string of humorous ad hominems and logical fallacies aren't an argument either. Bringing in George Carlin or whoever is an admission of the intellectual bankruptcy of one's position. Everybody remembers Socrates. Nobody remembers Aristophanes

The legions of women dying from back alley abortions is a myth

The claim that abortion bans do not save lives is simply sheer ignorance and nothing else but. Unless it is mendacity, that's another option


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1129490874059169793
:heston


----------



## deepelemblues

When they talk about women's rights, they don't mean the right of unborn women to not be killed :draper2

More female babies are aborted because females are seen as less desirable to raise thanks to cultural reasons? Meh whatever, that particular expression of gender inequality don't matter!


----------



## Ygor

If Pete BUTTigieg was in the movie Training Day in the scene where Denzel left him with the gangbangers the poor Mexicans would have used that bathtub to throw up in after Pete took 37 minutes to answer their question.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> A fetus is not a woman's body. Invalid.


The fetus growing inside the woman is making changes to the woman's body though.



> The "they'll do it anyway!" argument can be applied to literally anything the government bans, including rape, theft, and murder. Invalid


. This stance is the women desperate enough to still choose abortion for whatever reasons will now have to do it in a more unsafe way. Therefore endangering the mother's life unnecessarily. 

What's your take on prohibition and censorship if this is your position on government bans?



> The "pro-lifers don't want to take care of the baby!" argument can be applied to justify allowing mothers to murder their infants/toddlers as well. Invalid.
> 
> Next.


There is an option for these mothers to give up the infant/toddlers for adoption. If you have a way for mothers to give up unwanted fetuses from their body, do share with us.

Are contraceptives pre-murder then? Are you going to tell us that having sex without the purpose of procreation is being an accessory to a crime too?


----------



## Stinger Fan

Miss Sally said:


> I'm pro-choice but the reason most of the other pro-choicers refuse to call the fetus alive or a child is simply to neglect responsibility and justify their actions.
> 
> They cannot take the moral high ground if they accept they took a life. How else can they brow beat others and pass judgement from their progressive soapboxes if they're guilty themselves?
> 
> Give these types the opportunity to get their hands dirty and actually see what they'll be terminating, especially a fetus that's fairly developed and most wouldn't do it. Yet why? It's only flesh, it's not even alive! :laugh:
> 
> I believe it's up to the mother to decide if she wants an abortion but at least own up to what it entails. Rather than trying to convince yourself it means nothing by refusing to acknowledge the truth. :shrug


I'll never really support abortion, but there's 2 scenario's where I'd be more willing to accept it, even then I can't be fully behind it.The 2 scenarios would be that's if a woman gets pregnant from an assault with a mandatory police report is filed, and if the baby is a danger to the mothers health. I wouldn't exactly vote for a bill that only allows just those 2 scenarios ,but I wouldn't vote for a full ban either. It shouldn't be used as a form of birth control , which judging by the way people talk(and a look at the stats), it seems like it is. People(in most cases) should be making a better choice before, not after when they're forced into having to make a choice. And another thing that bothers me is this idea that there's only 2 outcomes, you're "stuck" with a baby, or you have an abortion, there's a 3rd viable option which is adoption. I know people use the argument that foster homes are all terrible(which isn't true), but you can choose who you adopt out to. I can't look at children who get adopted and see how happy they are and think to myself "They don't deserve a chance, they're better off aborted" . That's also my view on eugenics like when people praised Iceland for "curing" down syndrome by aborting everyone who has it. I have a friend who has a disability , and I can't sit there and believe that I don't think people like him deserve to live. Not to make this any longer, but I'm Not trying to change your mind or anything , just explaining some of the reasons why I simply can't support it. Contrary to what other people want to believe, it has nothing to do with religion or having a desire to control women's bodies lol


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> The fetus growing inside the woman is making changes to the woman's body though.


Yep, that's what happens when there's another human being growing inside of you. 



> This stance is the women desperate enough to still choose abortion for whatever reasons will now have to do it in a more unsafe way. Therefore endangering the mother's life unnecessarily.


Which does nothing to address the central tenet of the pro-life position, which is that the fetus is a human being and has a right to life that can't be violated. No, pro-lifers don't want to "control women", as someone else hysterically asserted. They want to protect the life of the fetus. 



> What's your take on prohibition and censorship if this is your position on government bans?


I'm not in support of the abortion ban, I'm pointing out that the pro-abortion arguments are bad. (Y) Abortion is killing a human being, and that's immoral. Is the government banning it altogether the best solution? In my opinion, no. But I will push back against the idea that abortion isn't immoral, or that human fetuses aren't human beings, because that's wrong. 



> Are contraceptives pre-murder then? Are you going to tell us that having sex without the purpose of procreation is being an accessory to a crime too?


Pre-murder is not a thing. Contraceptives don't destroy a fetus. The whole point of a contraceptive is to PREVENT pregnancy, not terminate an active pregnancy.


----------



## AlphaBeta

If women truly are capable of regulating their own bodies, as leftists say, this bill's a non-issue. Women who regulate their own bodies don't end up with unwanted pregnancies, after all. No unwanted pregnancies, no necessary abortions, no problem.

The only women this bill will affect are women who have proven incapable of making responsible decisions with their bodies, evidenced by their desire to end their pregnancy. Civilized society will be making the decisions for those women. You're welcome.


----------



## deepelemblues

William Barr is a bureaucrat worthy of the glory days of Rome :banderas


----------



## Dr. Middy

Not a fan of this bill at all. I've always straddled the line somewhere between pro-choice and pro-life, as I think that obviously women should have a choice in the matter since the fetus is growing inside of them after all, but I don't think we should be having abortions six months in unless there is something seriously wrong where the fetus could very will kill the mother. 

But the main part of the debate which is always going to receive the most attention and most polarizing opinions will always be the notion of if abortion is considered murder, regardless of timeframe. If you consider a person to be the moment the zygote becomes fertilized, then pretty much every single form of abortion will be considered murder, versus if you consider a fetus a person to be when the fetus is able to survive on its own outside the womb, then it differs. 

Personally, I really don't know how I feel about it, mostly because it can be somewhat difficult to have any connection to what essentially is the potential for a human life, unless you happen to be the parents or related towards the woman carrying it (this is for me anyway). Technically yes, it is an immoral act, but on the same token I think there is reasoning for it, whether that be rape instances, or health instances. I can even understand an abortion for a pregnancy that would have basically crippled the life of a woman, say if it happens accidently to somebody in poverty where they simply cannot provide for it. I'm not entirely a fan of it being used as a failsafe for just any person to say "not right now," but it is being used that way, and I think it just ends up being part of what happens if it exists. Even if the argument that abortion will happen regardless of the law at hand to some is "invalid," its still a relevant argument to me, because it will continue to happen. 

It will always be an immoral act, and it's obviously a very difficult process for any woman, to where I imagine it can be necessarily painful and heartbreaking mentally. But some people are fine with committing such an immoral act when necessary, and they shouldn't be demonized for making what is always going to be an insanely difficult life changing decision

This is always going to be one of those topics where there is never a right answer, or even a majority agreed upon option.


----------



## birthday_massacre

LOL at men in this thread think they can control a womens body


----------



## Dr. Middy

AlphaBeta said:


> If women truly are capable of regulating their own bodies, as leftists say, this bill's a non-issue. Women who regulate their own bodies don't end up with unwanted pregnancies, after all. No unwanted pregnancies, no necessary abortions, no problem.
> 
> The only women this bill will affect are women who have proven incapable of making responsible decisions with their bodies, evidenced by their desire to end their pregnancy. Civilized society will be making the decisions for those women. You're welcome.


Usually I'm civil about it, but this opinion fucking sucks.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The Doctor Middy Experience said:


> Usually I'm civil about it, but this opinion fucking sucks.


what rejoiner is he I wonder


----------



## AlphaBeta

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at men in this thread think they can control a womens body


LOL at women who end up with unwanted pregnancies thinking they can control their own bodies.

Women have the right to choose to take the responsible steps to not end up with an unwanted pregnancy. If they fail to take those steps, then too bad, so sad.

The days of lazy, irresponsible females using abortion as birth control are coming to an end. The good guys are finally fighting back.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlphaBeta said:


> LOL at women who end up with unwanted pregnancies thinking they can control their own bodies.
> 
> Women have the right to choose to take the responsible steps to not end up with an unwanted pregnancy. If they fail to take those steps, then too bad, so sad.
> 
> The days of lazy, irresponsible females using abortion as birth control are coming to an end. The good guys are finally fighting back.


What about women are are raped are they irresponsible females?


----------



## AlphaBeta

birthday_massacre said:


> What about women are are raped are they irresponsible females?


Remind us again, what percentage of abortions result from rape?


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlphaBeta said:


> Remind us again, what percentage of abortions result from rape?


 Answer the question


----------



## CamillePunk

Deadhead said:


> Unbelievable, even before the 2020 process begins Bernie is appeasing to the Democratic Party establishment, the people who stole the primaries from him the first time.
> 
> If this isn't evidence that Bernie isn't the right guy for progressives to get behind to fight for their issues, I have no idea what is. *He has no backbone.*
> 
> #VoteTulsi.


As I've told people all along, and was criticized for, even by some of the people who liked your post. :aryep

Also, stop trying to influence our elections you foreigner! 



Bill Barr asking Nancy Pelosi if she brought her handcuffs with her when they met. :heston What a legend. Why has he not been the AG from the start?


----------



## AlphaBeta

birthday_massacre said:


> Answer the question


That's what I thought.

For those unaware, the answer to the question birthday_massacre was afraid to answer is right around 0.5%. Roughly one in 200 abortions is due to rape; roughly 199 in 200 are not.

The smoking gun proof of the moral and intellectual emptiness of the abortion position is the fact that *they have absolutely no coherent defense* for the overwhelming majority of abortions, and must instead focus on the rare cases involving rape and incest.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlphaBeta said:


> That's what I thought.
> 
> For those unaware, the answer to the question birthday_massacre was afraid to answer is right around 0.5%. Roughly one in 200 abortions is due to rape; roughly 199 in 200 are not.
> 
> The smoking gun proof of the moral and intellectual emptiness of the abortion position is the fact that *they have absolutely no coherent defense* for the overwhelming majority of abortions, and must instead focus on the rare cases involving rape and incest.


I did not answer because the number is iirrelevant


Still avoiding the question aren't you. If the number is so small, then it should be easy for you to answer. The smaller the number then the easier it should for you to give an exception. Even if it was just one women per year, you still should not force her to carry her rapists child. 

You think its moral to force a woman who was raped to carry that pregnancy? 

Using your logic, just because its just .05% of raped women per year have abortions , then women who have been raped should be forced to carry the pregnancy . How exactly is that moral? 

I am not just focusing on women who have been raped, I am just curious where you draw your line and if you would force a woman who was raped to carry the pregnancy. Funny how you wont answer the question.

I am super open about my stance on abortion, that is the womens right to choose, if she was or wasn't raped. Just funny how you set up srawman arguments to claim different. 

I am always curios if the pro life crowd is wiling to admit they think women who are raped should be forced to carry the pregnancy.

So answer the question.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

AlphaBeta said:


> That's what I thought.
> 
> For those unaware, the answer to the question birthday_massacre was afraid to answer is right around 0.5%. Roughly one in 200 abortions is due to rape; roughly 199 in 200 are not.
> 
> The smoking gun proof of the moral and intellectual emptiness of the abortion position is the fact that *they have absolutely no coherent defense* for the overwhelming majority of abortions, and must instead focus on the rare cases involving rape and incest.


no matter how rare it is, even if it's just 1 out of 200, don't you think the law should make exceptions in those instances?

forcing a woman who was raped to carry and deliver an unwanted child sounds cruel to me.


----------



## rbhayek

I'm libertarian and anyone I like will NEVER be president. Sigh.


----------



## Tater

FriedTofu said:


> The fetus growing inside the woman is making changes to the woman's body though.
> 
> . This stance is the women desperate enough to still choose abortion for whatever reasons will now have to do it in a more unsafe way. Therefore endangering the mother's life unnecessarily.
> 
> What's your take on prohibition and censorship if this is your position on government bans?
> 
> There is an option for these mothers to give up the infant/toddlers for adoption. If you have a way for mothers to give up unwanted fetuses from their body, do share with us.
> 
> Are contraceptives pre-murder then? Are you going to tell us that having sex without the purpose of procreation is being an accessory to a crime too?


CP is a big government theocratic authoritarian who wants to use the power of the state to force society to live by his religious beliefs. You can't reason with people like that.


----------



## CamillePunk

Actually am an anarchist atheist (the literal opposite of everything above), in case anyone accidentally takes that bait seriously. :lol Someone's upset that I completely debunked his awful arguments and he has no recourse but to blatantly lie about me. Par for the course for Tater. Next will be the personal attacks.  

MAYOR PETE has released his first policy proposals, albeit lacking in much detail or specifics, which you would expect.

https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-2020-policy-proposals-90d48307-12bc-4bb1-873e-c6a6c670deac.html



> *Freedom*
> 
> Health care: "Medicare for All Who Want It” as a pathway to Medicare for All
> 
> Racial equality: Create a commission to propose reparations policies for Black Americans and close the racial wealth gap
> 
> LGBTQ rights: Pass the Equality Act; reverse the ban on transgender military service; enforce the nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act and key federal civil rights laws
> 
> *Security*
> 
> Climate change: Implement a Green New Deal with all available tools including a carbon tax-and-dividend for Americans, and major direct investment to build a 100% clean energy society
> 
> Gun control: Raise the standard of gun protection and ownership to make all Americans safer
> 
> Extremism: Increase federal resources for countering domestic terrorism and white supremacist violence
> 
> *Democracy*
> 
> Gerrymandering: Establish independent, statewide redistricting commissions
> 
> Electoral college: A national popular vote to replace the Electoral College
> 
> Political representation: True political representation for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico


All sounds like garbage to me, but he is a flowery talker for sure.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Yep, that's what happens when there's another human being growing inside of you.


Does the woman has no say in how her body is being used? For argument sake, like you say a fetus is a human, does a woman has no say in how her body is being used by another 'human being'?



> Which does nothing to address the central tenet of the pro-life position, which is that the fetus is a human being and has a right to life that can't be violated. No, pro-lifers don't want to "control women", as someone else hysterically asserted. They want to protect the life of the fetus.


Like I said, if you can find a way to move the fetus from an unwilling mother safely, by all means protect this 'right to life'. If not, how is this law not forcing women to give up the rights to their body for around 9 months? Limiting the choices women have seem like attempting to control women to me.



> I'm not in support of the abortion ban, I'm pointing out that the pro-abortion arguments are bad. (Y) Abortion is killing a human being, and that's immoral. Is the government banning it altogether the best solution? In my opinion, no. But I will push back against the idea that abortion isn't immoral, or that human fetuses aren't human beings, because that's wrong.


Their argument is simple. Leave it up to the mother to decide whether to carry through with the pregnancy. Don't take that choice away from her. How many of the anti-choice camp are in support of Florida's stand your ground law? My house, my rules seem to trump my body, my rules to these folks.

Human fetuses aren't fully formed human beings though. Is an egg the same as a chicken?



> Pre-murder is not a thing. Contraceptives don't destroy a fetus. The whole point of a contraceptive is to PREVENT pregnancy, not terminate an active pregnancy.


So what makes a contraceptive that prevents the creation a life any less immoral than an abortion if the anti-choice camp's argument is life is sacred?


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Actually am an anarchist atheist (the literal opposite of everything above), in case anyone accidentally takes that bait seriously. :lol Someone's upset that I completely debunked his awful arguments and he has no recourse but to blatantly lie about me. Par for the course for Tater. Next will be the personal attacks.


Delusional and ignorant, par for the course for CP.

Anarchism is a left wing position. You are pro-capitalism, a right wing position.

An anarchist believes in full bodily autonomy. You argue for banning abortion, which is a big government authoritarian position.

An atheist who pushes for religious laws is still pushing for a theocratic society, regardless of what beliefs he or she claims to personally hold.

Big government, theocratic, authoritarian, by definition. You call yourself one thing then advocate for the exact opposite. You can call a turd a candy bar but it doesn't make it taste any less like shit.

I don't have to personally attack you. You embarrass yourself just fine with your own statements.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Does the woman has no say in how her body is being used? For argument sake, like you say a fetus is a human, does a woman has no say in how her body is being used by another 'human being'?


No, because the human being only exists in the first place because of her own actions, and is now dependent upon her, which she knew was a potential consequence of her actions. I'm fine with abortion in the case of rape, because the woman has no moral responsibility to the fetus in that situation, in my view. The rapist assumes full moral responsibility for the rape as well as the death of the fetus. 



> Like I said, if you can find a way to move the fetus from an unwilling mother safely, by all means protect this 'right to life'. If not, how is this law not forcing women to give up the rights to their body for around 9 months? Limiting the choices women have seem like attempting to control women to me.


I think my answer above sufficiently answers this but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring it so I'll quote it anyway. (Y) 

I will add though that nearly all government policies, and particularly those proposed on the left, limit the choices people can make. If you accept the legitimacy of government (I don't), then you accept that it's sometimes acceptable for the government to limit peoples choices, aka control them. 



> Their argument is simple. Leave it up to the mother to decide whether to carry through with the pregnancy. Don't take that choice away from her. How many of the anti-choice camp are in support of Florida's stand your ground law? My house, my rules seem to trump my body, my rules to these folks.


A person who enters your home without your permission, plausibly to do you or your property harm, is committing an act of aggression against you and you therefore have the right to defend yourself and your property. The Stand Your Ground law is completely moral, and in no way contradicts the pro-life position on abortion. A fetus didn't do anything to anyone. Didn't even ask to exist. 



> Human fetuses aren't fully formed human beings though. Is an egg the same as a chicken?


Correct, which is why I don't view abortion and murder to be in the same moral category, and have never called for it to be in the same legal category. I'm for the ban on murder, and am not for abortion bans. As horrific and immoral as I think it is. 



> So what makes a contraceptive that prevents the creation a life any less immoral than an abortion if the anti-choice camp's argument is life is sacred?


Because no human life exists yet at the point that contraceptive is effective.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> Anarchism is a left wing position. You are pro-capitalism, a right wing position.


Anarchy simply means "without rulers", and includes a host of different ideologies ranging from left to right which call for the absence of a state. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and the one I generally subscribe to. But I don't really care which form of anarchism people practice, so long as its peaceful and voluntary.  



> An anarchist believes in full bodily autonomy. You argue for banning abortion, which is a big government authoritarian position.


False. Have never argued for banning abortion, and said multiple times in the last couple of pages I don't support abortion bans.

Why should I be embarrassed? :lol You're the one who can't read.


----------



## Draykorinee

I've always been a pro choicer who finds the idea of aborting a child because you accidently had some blokes beans shot up your muff morally reprehensible.

If you had contraception that failed or you were raped etc then I have no moral issue at all.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> No, because the human being only exists in the first place because of her own actions, and is now dependent upon her, which she knew was a potential consequence of her actions. I'm fine with abortion in the case of rape, because the woman has no moral responsibility to the fetus in that situation, in my view. The rapist assumes full moral responsibility for the rape as well as the death of the fetus.


In other words you are in support of controlling a woman's sex life? Because contraceptive can fail too.



> I think my answer above sufficiently answers this but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring it so I'll quote it anyway. (Y)
> 
> I will add though that nearly all government policies, and particularly those proposed on the left, limit the choices people can make. If you accept the legitimacy of government (I don't), then you accept that it's sometimes acceptable for the government to limit peoples choices, aka control them.


 Doesn't that make their argument valid, however weak it seem to you?



> A person who enters your home without your permission, plausibly to do you or your property harm, is committing an act of aggression against you and you therefore have the right to defend yourself and your property. The Stand Your Ground law is completely moral, and in no way contradicts the pro-life position on abortion. A fetus didn't do anything to anyone. Didn't even ask to exist.


An unwanted pregnancy could plausibly cause harm to the mother, cost her socially and economically if she isn't prepared. 



> Correct, which is why I don't view abortion and murder to be in the same moral category, and have never called for it to be in the same legal category. I'm for the ban on murder, and am not for abortion bans. As horrific and immoral as I think it is.


What exactly is your position on the latest attempts to ban abortion? Should it be repealed and be replaced with something else? Or should there not be a ban?




> Because no human life exists yet at the point that contraceptive is effective.


Contraceptive is OK but if contraceptive fails, it is immoral for the woman or the couple to opt for abortion. Is that correct?


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> In other words you are in support of controlling a woman's sex life? Because contraceptive can fail too.


No, where did I propose controlling anyone? I said it's immoral. Didn't say I was going to force them not to do it, or that anyone else should. 



> Doesn't that make their argument valid, however weak it seem to you?


I'm not sure what you meant by this. Please explain. 



> An unwanted pregnancy could plausibly cause harm to the mother, cost her socially and economically if she isn't prepared.


Agreed, but nobody is aggressing against her. The fetus exists because of her own voluntary actions. It didn't make any choices to do anything to her. Therefore killing it would be immoral. 



> What exactly is your position on the latest attempts to ban abortion? Should it be repealed and be replaced with something else? Or should there not be a ban?


I'm against abortion bans and think this particular one goes especially too far, although it doesn't go as far as some have proclaimed it does, for example there are provisions which don't call for the prosecution of doctors in the case of a threat to the mother's life, which has been widely reported. 



> Contraceptive is OK but if contraceptive fails, it is immoral for the woman or the couple to opt for abortion. Is that correct?


Yep, nothing wrong with using contraceptives.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Anarchism simply means "without rulers", and includes a host of different ideologies ranging from left to right which call for the absence of a state. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and the one I generally subscribe to.


I know that the political spectrum is something you struggle grasping but comparing anarchism with anarcho-capitalism is like comparing fascism with communism. Anarchism means living without rulers. Anarcho-capitalism is perfectly fine living with rulers as long as the rulers are called capitalists and not government.



> But I don't really care which form of anarchism people practice, so long as its peaceful and voluntary.


"Voluntary", like women should be able to voluntarily choose whether or not they want to carry a pregnancy to term.



> False. Have never argued for banning abortion, and said multiple times in the last couple of pages I don't support abortion bans.
> 
> Why should I be embarrassed? :lol You're the one who can't read.


We're back to the turd and the candy bar situation. You constantly argue for one position then claim to be in favor of the exact opposite. Abortion is evil and wrong and women shouldn't get abortions, but I am pro-choice. War and big government is evil and wrong but I support Trump's fascist war mongering government. I'm an anarchist who believes having rulers is evil and wrong but I love capitalists ruling society.

Why should you be embarrassed? Saying you support one thing while supporting the exact opposite would be embarrassing to most. For you though, I see no reason why you should be embarrassed because you don't even comprehend your own hypocrisy.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> I know that the political spectrum is something you struggle grasping but comparing anarchism with anarcho-capitalism is like comparing fascism with communism. Anarchism means living without rulers. Anarcho-capitalism is perfectly fine living with rulers as long as the rulers are called capitalists and not government.


Communism and fascism seems an apt comparison, given the pursuit of one has always led to the other. :mj 

A "capitalist ruler" is an oxymoron. Voluntary exchange is central to capitalism. I know the definition of capitalism is something you've always struggled with, though.  Read too much Marx, I suspect. 



> "Voluntary", like women should be able to voluntarily choose whether or not they want to carry a pregnancy to term.


Sure. Where did I argue otherwise? You can morally condemn something without trying to forcefully stop it or think a third party should forcefully stop it. How is this difficult to grasp? 



> We're back to the turd and the candy bar situation. You constantly argue for one position then claim to be in favor of the exact opposite. Abortion is evil and wrong and women shouldn't get abortions, but I am pro-choice.


No, you just fail at comprehension. I'm making a moral argument, not a political one. Your failure to understand the distinction is not my problem.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Communism and fascism seems an apt comparison, given the pursuit of one has always led to the other. :mj
> 
> A "capitalist ruler" is an oxymoron. Voluntary exchange is central to capitalism. I know the definition of capitalism is something you've always struggled with, though.  Read too much Marx, I suspect.
> 
> Sure. Where did I argue otherwise? You can morally condemn something without trying to forcefully stop it or think a third party should forcefully stop it. How is this difficult to grasp?
> 
> No, you just fail at comprehension. I'm making a moral argument, not a political one. Your failure to understand the distinction is not my problem.


You can have the last word on this argument. You won't shut up until you do.

Just admit it... you know you missed me.

:Frankie


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> No, where did I propose controlling anyone? I said it's immoral. Didn't say I was going to force them not to do it, or that anyone else should.


What is the point of this discussion if on the one hand you are saying something is immoral and people shouldn't do it, but on the other hand you say nobody should prevent others from doing immoral things? Seems like you want to be judge and jury but reluctant to be the executioner.




> I'm not sure what you meant by this. Please explain.


One of the pro-choice argument is the law reduces the women's right to choose. Limiting choices is a way to control someone. You dismissed it as an overreaction in an earlier post.



> Agreed, but nobody is aggressing against her. The fetus exists because of her own voluntary actions. It didn't make any choices to do anything to her. Therefore killing it would be immoral.


I wouldn't say the fetus is completely non-aggressing if the pregnancy prevents her from doing her job to the best of abilities or cause her physical distress.



> I'm against abortion bans and think this particular one goes especially too far, although it doesn't go as far as some have proclaimed it does, for example there are provisions which don't call for the prosecution of doctors in the case of a threat to the mother's life, which has been widely reported.


But that line is tough to judge. What if the judge and doctor disagree on the level of threat after the deed is done and a woman's life is saved? I suspect the concern is the wording places a chilling effect on doctors and could potentially cost a woman's life if her doctor is unwilling to risk prosecution.



> Yep, nothing wrong with using contraceptives.


I find it interesting whether a product is defective determines morality.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> What is the point of this discussion if on the one hand you are saying something is immoral and people shouldn't do it, but on the other hand you say nobody should prevent others from doing immoral things? Seems like you want to be judge and jury but reluctant to be the executioner.


Judging people isn't immoral. Executing them is.  



> One of the pro-choice argument is the law reduces the women's right to choose. Limiting choices is a way to control someone. You dismissed it as an overreaction in an earlier post.


No, I'm saying "controlling women" is not the motivation. Control is the effect of any government law, so anyone who accepts government is in favor of controlling people, therefore being pro-choice on the grounds that "limiting choices is wrong" is only a non-hypocritical position for an anarchist. 



> I wouldn't say the fetus is completely non-aggressing if the pregnancy prevents her from doing her job to the best of abilities or cause her physical distress.


A fetus is essentially unconscious, it's impossible for it to aggress. 



> But that line is tough to judge. What if the judge and doctor disagree on the level of threat after the deed is done and a woman's life is saved? I suspect the concern is the wording places a chilling effect on doctors and could potentially cost a woman's life if her doctor is unwilling to risk prosecution.


I don't feel an obligation to defend a bill I don't support. 



> I find it interesting whether a product is defective determines morality.


Not sure where you've gotten that from.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1129441800622624769
Government schools are so bad that they want to ban their competition, which parents are voluntarily choosing to pay out of pocket to send their kids to because public education is so awful and does nothing to prepare kids for life.

Also, for-profit charter schools have to actually provide a quality education in order to stay in business. That IS accountability. Government schools have no such obligation. This tweet is so bizarro world evil. Sacrifice many kids abilities to get a good education in order to pander to fucking teachers unions for votes and campaign contributions. God he's so disgustingly vile.


----------



## Draykorinee

I despise the idea of charter schools, they have no accountability. Don't go give me that business bullshit.


----------



## DOPA

CamillePunk said:


> Also, stop trying to influence our elections you foreigner!


*Russian influenced forum troll arrested for interference of the election at the behest of the Trump Administration* - Latest CNN & MSNBC headlines.

.


----------



## Britz94xD

I would bet you anything that if Male Humans were burdened with pregnancy like Sea Horses, the legal right to Abortion would have been codified into the Bible, Quran, Torah or any ancient law many millennia ago.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1129441800622624769
> Government schools are so bad that they want to ban their competition, which parents are voluntarily choosing to pay out of pocket to send their kids to because public education is so awful and does nothing to prepare kids for life.
> 
> Also, for-profit charter schools have to actually provide a quality education in order to stay in business. That IS accountability. Government schools have no such obligation. This tweet is so bizarro world evil. Sacrifice many kids abilities to get a good education in order to pander to fucking teachers unions for votes and campaign contributions. God he's so disgustingly vile.


Public schools are a very important source of funding for left wing politics through the embezzling* of taxpayer funds to left wing parties and organizations via teacher's unions

Charter schools represent a significant threat to the financial viability of the political left especially at the local and state level. BernieOld openly, albeit indirectly, admits it there

So BernieOld, man of the people, shows his hypocrisy and lack of principle once again. One again it's all about that :vince$ to America's premier socialist. Charter schools are so popular among black parents in particular that they, along with the courts increasingly proscribing the ability of unions to extort workers, are hollowing out the funding of some important local and state teacher's unions chapters and the left can't afford that

Party concerns > "the people"

But that's par for the course for socialists

*It's called hyperbole, cool your tits statists


----------



## Tater

Draykorinee said:


> I despise the idea of charter schools, they have no accountability. Don't go give me that business bullshit.


The argument is hilariously retarded. Publicly funded non-profit schools have no accountability, so let's use privately funded for-profit schools that have no accountability. 

Public education needs a complete overhaul, for sure, but the solution is not shipping kids off to Betsy Devos indoctrination camps where they can be brainwashed with religious dogma and scientifically illiterate bullshit. Charter schools will never have any accountability because the entire point of them is evade accountability. Oh and to profit from the parents who want their kids to get an ideology instead of an actual education.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

My problem with the abortion debate is both sides try to turn the other side into monsters. Pro-abortion people want to murder babies even up until they're born. Anti-abortion people want to control women's bodies because women should be housewives, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Anti-abortion people, by and large, are not doing this to set up The Handmaid's Tale. They honestly believe that a human life begins at conception and that aborting it is killing a defenseless human being. They also vary in when they believe an abortion is acceptable. Some think health of the mother, rape, and/or incest are legitimate reasons and some believe there is no legitimate reason

Pro-abortion people, by and large, are not doing this because they love infanticide. They honestly believe that a woman has an inalienable right to decide what happens with their own body and they believe that life begins not at conception, but at a later date which even among them varies. Some think heart beat, some think 4-6 months, some think when the baby is viable outside the mother. Some believe right up until it's born. They believe that an unplanned pregnancy can ruin lives. They also believe that if you make it illegal it will still happen, but it will be more dangerous.

With that said there are members on both sides that are on the extreme edge and do fit the stereotypes the other side uses but they're not the majority.

I don't know where I sit on the abortion debate. I see both sides of it. An unplanned pregnancy can ruin lives. Pics of the fetus in the womb look like a baby to me. If you outlaw it, it will still happen and it will be inherently more dangerous. It shouldn't be used as a birth control measure. Abstinence only sex education is completely stupid and if you want fewer abortions than push contraceptives. because people aren't going to stop fucking. It sucks to be the father and have no say in what happens. It sucks to have to raise a baby on your own because the father fucked off.

etc. etc. etc.

Most people on both sides aren't monsters. They're just people that think they're doing the right thing. I don't think either of them is 100% wrong or 100% right.


----------



## deepelemblues

The Coalition (conservatives, or "conservatives" to some lol) has won a "shocking" victory over Labor in Straya

The polls shown to be wrong yet again :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> My problem with the abortion debate is both sides try to turn the other side into monsters. Pro-abortion people want to murder babies even up until their born. Anti-abortion people want to control women's bodies because women should be housewives, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
> 
> Anti-abortion people, by in large, are not doing this to set up The Handmaid's Tale. They honestly believe that a human life begins at conception and that aborting it is killing a defenseless human being. They also vary in when they believe an abortion is acceptable. Some think health of the mother, rape, and/or incest are legitimate reasons and some believe there is no legitimate reason
> 
> Pro-abortion people, by in large, are not doing this because they love infanticide. They honestly believe that a woman has an inalienable right to decide what happens with their own body and they believe that life begins not at conception, but at a later date which even among them varies. Some think heart beat, some think 4-6 months, some think when the baby is viable outside the mother. Some believe right up until it's born. They believe that an unplanned pregnancy can ruin lives. They also believe that if you make it illegal it will still happen, but it will be more dangerous.
> 
> With that said there are members on both sides that are on the extreme edge and do fit the stereotypes the other side uses but they're not the majority.
> 
> I don't know where I sit on the abortion debate. I see both sides of it. An unplanned pregnancy can ruin lives. Pics of the fetus in the womb look like a baby to me. If you outlaw it, it will still happen and it will be inherently more dangerous. It shouldn't be used as a birth control measure. Abstinence only sex education is completely stupid and if you want fewer abortions than push contraceptives. because people aren't going to stop fucking. It sucks to be the father and have no say in what happens. It sucks to have to raise a baby on your own because the father fucked off.
> 
> etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Most people on both sides aren't monsters. They're just people that think they're doing the right thing. I don't think either of them is 100% wrong or 100% right.


People need to stop with this BS infanticide talking point (not saying you but the people that bring it up) . This shit rarely ever happens and in pretty much every case its because the baby is not going to survive or has some serious defect where they are not going to survive for very long. stop acting like they are "killing" healthy babies after they are born.

For example from one doctor 

"I had to have a late term abortion. It was the worst moment in my life. What made it even worse was the State of Utah had made it illegal.

I had one dead twin. The other had severe Spina Bifida. It was so bad that his brain had developed outside his head, and his spine was open clear to the lumbar level. There was ZERO hope, and no medical miracle that could save him. Our dreams were shattered. These twins were from IVF. I was forty, and there would be no more pregnancies."

The fact is late term abortions are super rare, stop acting like its commonplace


Also something else that is super ironic about all these anti-abortion states they also tend to be anti-sex ed and anti-contraception. states


----------



## Laughable Chimp

I just don't consider a fetus a human really so I don't really care if people want to abort. Hell, even if a woman fucks around and gets pregnant multiple times and wishes to abort the pregnancies each time, I really don't care. That's how little I care for the life of an unborn fetus, it just isn't truly human or even truly alive to me. Just my take on it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Draykorinee said:


> I despise the idea of charter schools, they have no accountability. Don't go give me that business bullshit.


Out of curiosity, what exactly is your reasoning? From my limited understanding, students in charter schools tend to perform better than their public school counterparts in most cases, which includes minority students. If true, isn't that a good thing? If it was truly about helping students, why would people be against schools that are successful at doing that? It seems a bit selfish to want to deny students access to schools that may serve them better and help them be more successful. I'm sure neither school type is perfect by any means, but from what I've heard, charter schools do seem to help quite a bit. I don't know much about this subject myself, I'm not on either side of the argument but people have a real hatred to it and I'm not so sure why.


----------



## Art Vandaley

> They honestly believe that a woman has an inalienable right to decide what happens with their own body


Why shouldn't they?

Surely you believe men have an inalienable right to decide what happens with their own bodies?

Do you honestly not believe that you have an inalienable right do decide what happens to your own body?

Would you be totally cool with a law requiring you to get a piercing or a tattoo, perhaps your social security number somewhere convenient?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Out of curiosity, what exactly is your reasoning? From my limited understanding, students in charter schools tend to perform better than their public school counterparts in most cases, which includes minority students. If true, isn't that a good thing? If it was truly about helping students, why would people be against schools that are successful at doing that? It seems a bit selfish to want to deny students access to schools that may serve them better and help them be more successful. I'm sure neither school type is perfect by any means, but from what I've heard, charter schools do seem to help quite a bit. I don't know much about this subject myself, I'm not on either side of the argument but people have a real hatred to it and I'm not so sure why.


What is your citation that charter schools tend to perform better than their public school counterparts in most cases? I just see that 17% of charter schools perform better than public schools which means that in 83% of them, the are worst. Which is not even apples to apples since they have no standards like they do in public schools.

Other reasons why charter schools are bad is because they are private yet take tax payer money away from public schools. Charter schools should not be getting tax payer money since they are private and especially since most charter schools are religious and religious establishments should not be getting tax payer money and its even worst when 50% of charter schools are for profit.

Charter schools have no transparency and don't have to comply with the same types of laws/rules/regulations public schools do. Also charter schools don't have a thing like a school board that is elected by the public. 

they also are not unionized so they can fuck over the teachers as badly as they want. 

Finally a lot of charter schools tend to go under at an alarming rate, a big number of them in their first year


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1129791583220588546
:mj4

Easily as dumb as anything Trump has ever said.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1129947826568347648
:heston


----------



## AlphaBeta

_"I'm a strong, independent woman!"
"Congratulations, you're pregnant."
"AHHHH! KILL IT!"_

Feminists :haha




Berzerker's Beard said:


> no matter how rare it is, even if it's just 1 out of 200, don't you think the law should make exceptions in those instances?
> 
> forcing a woman who was raped to carry and deliver an unwanted child sounds cruel to me.


I (mostly) avoid the rape/incest/health-related abortion issue because (a) hard cases make bad law, and (b) it's a talking point exploited by leftists to justify all abortions (we all saw slimy birthday_massacre immediately hide behind it like a coward).

In situations where the mother's health is in jeopardy, I accept that abortion can be the best solution to a bad situation.

For situations involving rape and incest, I can accept abortion. Still, it's tough knowing that it's no less a separate, living being than an unborn child conceived in love.

What I'm against is abortion being used as a disgusting form of birth control by lazy, selfish, irresponsible tramps, which seems to be the overwhelming majority of cases. It's time to teach women to respect their bodies and make responsible decisions with it. Learn to do that, and abortion becomes a non-issue.


----------



## Britz94xD

If you ban abortion completely, then you get ridiculous circumstances like what happened in Ireland a couple years back. A pregnant woman was dying of sepsis but the doctors refused to perform a late term abortion that would've saved her life because of their concern for the unborn child.

In the end, she died and her baby died. Pro-life for the win.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

AlphaBeta said:


> I (mostly) avoid the rape/incest/health-related abortion issue because (a) hard cases make bad law, and (b) it's a talking point exploited by leftists to justify all abortions (we all saw slimy birthday_massacre immediately hide behind it like a coward).
> 
> In situations where the mother's health is in jeopardy, I accept that abortion can be the best solution to a bad situation.
> *
> For situations involving rape and incest, I can accept abortion.* Still, it's tough knowing that it's no less a separate, living being than an unborn child conceived in love.
> 
> What I'm against is abortion being used as a disgusting form of birth control by lazy, selfish, irresponsible tramps, which seems to be the overwhelming majority of cases. It's time to teach women to respect their bodies and make responsible decisions with it. Learn to do that, and abortion becomes a non-issue.


that's all i needed to know. that's why this law goes too far. 

i don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control either, but i am against any law that restricts freedom and gives the government that much moral authority. similarly i think it's ridiculous that gambling is illegal in certain states.

i can understand cutting off public funding for abortions, but banning them entirely? telling people they can't even get it done privately?

that's a huge overstep. this law is unjust for both men AND women. if a man impregnates a woman and they both decide they don't want the child, they should have that freedom. (so long as it's done early)


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Alkomesh2 said:


> Why shouldn't they?
> 
> Surely you believe men have an inalienable right to decide what happens with their own bodies?
> 
> Do you honestly not believe that you have an inalienable right do decide what happens to your own body?
> 
> Would you be totally cool with a law requiring you to get a piercing or a tattoo, perhaps your social security number somewhere convenient?


Why would you quote one line from my post and ask me a question about it, but not put me in the quote so I know about your question?

I wasn't making an argument against women's or men's inalienable body rights. I was stating the pro-choice position because I wish both sides could acknowledge what the other really believes instead of making them into caricatured villains. 

You just latched onto one line and ignored all the rest of it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlphaBeta said:


> _"I'm a strong, independent woman!"
> "Congratulations, you're pregnant."
> "AHHHH! KILL IT!"_
> 
> Feminists :haha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I (mostly) avoid the rape/incest/health-related abortion issue because (a) hard cases make bad law, and (b) it's a talking point exploited by leftists to justify all abortions (we all saw slimy birthday_massacre immediately hide behind it like a coward).
> 
> In situations where the mother's health is in jeopardy, I accept that abortion can be the best solution to a bad situation.
> 
> For situations involving rape and incest, I can accept abortion. Still, it's tough knowing that it's no less a separate, living being than an unborn child conceived in love.
> 
> What I'm against is abortion being used as a disgusting form of birth control by lazy, selfish, irresponsible tramps, which seems to be the overwhelming majority of cases. It's time to teach women to respect their bodies and make responsible decisions with it. Learn to do that, and abortion becomes a non-issue.



An embryo is not a living human being. Stop pretending it is. And its funny how you can't even be honest. What exactly am I hiding behind? Funny how you stopped debating me because you were getting destroyed.
Its also funny you keep showing how sexist you are by the way you talk about women. Funny how you put no blame on the men who decide to cum inside the women knowing it can get them pregnant.


----------



## Patrick Sledge

Britz94xD said:


> If you ban abortion completely, then you get ridiculous circumstances like what happened in Ireland a couple years back. A pregnant woman was dying of sepsis but the doctors refused to perform a late term abortion that would've saved her life because of their concern for the unborn child.
> 
> In the end, she died and her baby died. Pro-life for the win.


You got a news article for this? I'm interested in reading proof of this happening. I'm not calling you a liar, but I like proof.


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> Why shouldn't they?
> 
> Surely you believe men have an inalienable right to decide what happens with their own bodies?
> 
> Do you honestly not believe that you have an inalienable right do decide what happens to your own body?
> 
> Would you be totally cool with a law requiring you to get a piercing or a tattoo, perhaps your social security number somewhere convenient?


Not if what I decide to do with my body directly results in someone else dying


----------



## Britz94xD

Patrick Sledge said:


> You got a news article for this? I'm interested in reading proof of this happening. I'm not calling you a liar, but I like proof.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

No problem, I didn't get the story exactly right but close enough.


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

If you think abortions are immoral, wonderful! Gold Star for your virtue signalling on an issue you've most likely never had to deal with yourself. I've got the best solution for you - don't get an abortion.

See how easy it is?


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> What is your citation that charter schools tend to perform better than their public school counterparts in most cases? I just see that 17% of charter schools perform better than public schools which means that in 83% of them, the are worst. Which is not even apples to apples since they have no standards like they do in public schools.
> 
> Other reasons why charter schools are bad is because they are private yet take tax payer money away from public schools. Charter schools should not be getting tax payer money since they are private and especially since most charter schools are religious and religious establishments should not be getting tax payer money and its even worst when 50% of charter schools are for profit.
> 
> Charter schools have no transparency and don't have to comply with the same types of laws/rules/regulations public schools do. Also charter schools don't have a thing like a school board that is elected by the public.
> 
> they also are not unionized so they can fuck over the teachers as badly as they want.
> 
> Finally a lot of charter schools tend to go under at an alarming rate, a big number of them in their first year


Like I said, its not something I particularly know all that much about, but it is something I've heard a lot but never in too much depth. Having said that,I think you may be confusing charter schools with private schools. At least in articles I've seen, charter schools are public schools but receive less funding through taxes. That 83% of charter schools doing worse, isn't true. I'm looking at (presumably)the same article, it says 37% do worse, while 46% show no better or worse than public schools. That same article(which I'll link below) says charter high schools perform better on SAT scores. So perhaps their curriculum isn't as bad as people may think? I don't know

http://www.data-first.org/questions...egular-public-schools-in-student-performance/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilyl...-in-district-autonomous-schools/#4d99acb2759d
^Another article suggesting why charter schools possibly perform better. 
https://edreform.com/2011/09/how-are-charter-schools-funded/
^Article stating how charter schools get funded 
https://www.understood.org/en/schoo...-private-and-charter-schools-how-they-compare
^article comparing all 3 forms of school, it seems like you have more of a beef with private schools than charter schools. 

A talking point I've noticed about public schools is the desire to have smaller classrooms because it helps students more. Well, charter schools and private schools tend to have smaller classrooms, which may be why they could be more successful. As for not being unionized, are there any major cases of teachers getting screwed at charter schools? I don't know but I would like an example. Also, its not as if Public School teachers are perfect by any means. Especially seeing as a vast majority of teachers in the USA are Democrats, I think something like less than 15% of teachers are Republicans? Some of those Democrat teachers even go after students who are republicans. No student should get punished for what their political affiliation may or may not be. A teacher shouldn't take it upon themselves to dish up their own form of punishment for wrong think. Teachers don't always have students best interests in mind. Just last year up here in Ontario teachers were protesting changes conservative premier Doug Ford wanted to make to the sex ed curriculum . Later on, teachers took it upon themselves to let students out of class in order to protest and make it seem larger than it was. Funny enough, they don't seem to care that Ontario lags behind the rest of the country in other important subjects such as math. 

Look, I'm not on either team here, like I said I honestly don't know much about it and seeing as I don't have a kid I can't make much of an informed opinion because I'm not invested in it to do all the research. All I'm saying is, competition isn't necessarily a bad thing and if kids do find success and do better, then its not the end of the world. If teachers cared about students like they say they do, they wouldn't want to try to make it more difficult for students to get into other schools


----------



## AlphaBeta

yeahbaby! said:


> If you think abortions are immoral, wonderful! Gold Star for your virtue signalling on an issue you've most likely never had to deal with yourself. I've got the best solution for you - don't get an abortion.
> 
> See how easy it is?


You seem confused as to how civilized society works. Let me explain it to you.

When civilized society finds something repulsive and immoral, we protect _all of society_ from it, not just ourselves.

I assume you're not a psychopath, and believe murder is wrong. Just replace "abortions" with "murders" in your quote.



> If you think murders are immoral, wonderful! Gold Star for your virtue signalling on an issue you've most likely never had to deal with yourself. I've got the best solution for you - don't murder anyone.


See how ignorant that looks? That's how civilized society--society which embraces the scientific fact that life begins at conception--views your abortion rant.


----------



## Tater

AlphaBeta said:


> You seem confused as to how civilized society works. Let me explain it to you.
> 
> When civilized society finds something repulsive and immoral, we protect _all of society_ from it, not just ourselves.
> 
> I assume you're not a psychopath, and believe murder is wrong. Just replace "abortions" with "murders" in your quote.
> 
> 
> 
> See how ignorant that looks? That's how civilized society--society which embraces the scientific fact that life begins at conception--views your abortion rant.


You seem confused as to the definitions of murder and scientific fact. (Y)


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Like I said, its not something I particularly know all that much about, but it is something I've heard a lot but never in too much depth. Having said that,I think you may be confusing charter schools with private schools. At least in articles I've seen, charter schools are public schools but receive less funding through taxes. That 83% of charter schools doing worse, isn't true. I'm looking at (presumably)the same article, it says 37% do worse, while 46% show no better or worse than public schools. That same article(which I'll link below) says charter high schools perform better on SAT scores. So perhaps their curriculum isn't as bad as people may think? I don't know
> 
> http://www.data-first.org/questions/...t-performance/
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilyla.../#4d99acb2759d
> ^Another article suggesting why charter schools possibly perform better.
> https://edreform.com/2011/09/how-are...chools-funded/
> ^Article stating how charter schools get funded
> https://www.understood.org/en/school...w-they-compare
> ^article comparing all 3 forms of school, it seems like you have more of a beef with private schools than charter schools.


Everything I said about charter schools are true. They are not really pubic schools since they are independ from public schools, so like I said they don't have to abide by the regulations that public schools do. That is why they are allowed for example to be reglious. But yes they are technically public schools but there is a debate if they should be or not. I did misspeak about it not really being public but everything else I said is true about charter schools.




Stinger Fan said:


> A talking point I've noticed about public schools is the desire to have smaller classrooms because it helps students more. Well, charter schools and private schools tend to have smaller classrooms, which may be why they could be more successful. As for not being unionized, are there any major cases of teachers getting screwed at charter schools? I don't know but I would like an example.


Well they get paid less than public school teachers by about $10k per year. 



Stinger Fan said:


> Also, its not as if Public School teachers are perfect by any means. Especially seeing as a vast majority of teachers in the USA are Democrats, I think something like less than 15% of teachers are Republicans? Some of those Democrat teachers even go after students who are republicans. No student should get punished for what their political affiliation may or may not be. A teacher shouldn't take it upon themselves to dish up their own form of punishment for wrong think. Teachers don't always have students best interests in mind. Just last year up here in Ontario teachers were protesting changes conservative premier Doug Ford wanted to make to the sex ed curriculum . Later on, teachers took it upon themselves to let students out of class in order to protest and make it seem larger than it was. Funny enough, they don't seem to care that Ontario lags behind the rest of the country in other important subjects such as math.


What do you mean by go after? Examples ?

What kind of wrong think? Do you have an example?

I dont want to get into this whole republican vs democrat thing when it comes to schools but in the US its aways the christian reublicans who are pushing to teach bullshit like god created the universe in science class. 



Stinger Fan said:


> Look, I'm not on either team here, like I said I honestly don't know much about it and seeing as I don't have a kid I can't make much of an informed opinion because I'm not invested in it to do all the research. All I'm saying is, competition isn't necessarily a bad thing and if kids do find success and do better, then its not the end of the world. If teachers cared about students like they say they do, they wouldn't want to try to make it more difficult for students to get into other schools


In some states teachers dont even have to be certified to teach at charter schools, do you see a problem with that?

Charter schools wouldn't be such an issue if they had to follow the same rules as public schools. That is where most of the issues are. Plus them being for profit is a huge issue when they are getting tax payer dollars.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlphaBeta said:


> You seem confused as to how civilized society works. Let me explain it to you.
> 
> When civilized society finds something repulsive and immoral, we protect _all of society_ from it, not just ourselves.
> 
> I assume you're not a psychopath, and believe murder is wrong. Just replace "abortions" with "murders" in your quote.
> 
> 
> 
> See how ignorant that looks? That's how civilized society--society which embraces the scientific fact that life begins at conception--views your abortion rant.


Morality is subjective, stop forcing your morality onto others. And no sorry but society does NOT embrace that life begins at conception and that is not a scientific fact lol

Also life begins at viability. It not a life until it can survive outside the womb on it's on.


----------



## blaird

birthday_massacre said:


> Everything I said about charter schools are true. They are not really pubic schools since they are independ from public schools, so like I said they don't have to abide by the regulations that public schools do. That is why they are allowed for example to be reglious. But yes they are technically public schools but there is a debate if they should be or not. I did misspeak about it not really being public but everything else I said is true about charter schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well they get paid less than public school teachers by about $10k per year.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by go after? Examples ?
> 
> What kind of wrong think? Do you have an example?
> 
> I dont want to get into this whole republican vs democrat thing when it comes to schools but in the US its aways the christian reublicans who are pushing to teach bullshit like god created the universe in science class.
> 
> 
> 
> In some states teachers dont even have to be certified to teach at charter schools, do you see a problem with that?
> 
> Charter schools wouldn't be such an issue if they had to follow the same rules as public schools. That is where most of the issues are. Plus them being for profit is a huge issue when they are getting tax payer dollars.


As a teacher i agree with a lot in here (ha weird on us agreeing). Our state is starting to look at vouchers to wave tuition if a kid in one district decides to go to another while still living in district A. And some of these funds are being pulled from public education funds.


----------



## birthday_massacre

blaird said:


> As a teacher i agree with a lot in here (ha weird on us agreeing). Our state is starting to look at vouchers to wave tuition if a kid in one district decides to go to another while still living in district A. And some of these funds are being pulled from public education funds.


We agree on a lot of things outside of the Trump thread lol


----------



## DesolationRow

birthday_massacre said:


> Morality is subjective, stop forcing your morality onto others. And no sorry but society does NOT embrace that life begins at conception and that is not a scientific fact lol
> 
> Also life begins at viability. It not a life until it can survive outside the womb on it's on.


Civilization is (at times for good and for ill) wedded to the establishment of behavioral standards. The argument in the realm of lawmaking, "People will do it anyway" which is frequently trotted out for the abortion debate for some reason is insubstantial. Humanist lawmakers and papacies--the latter perhaps best embodied by Nicholas V and Leo X--comprehended the pitiless point that even at their justest laws must carry burdens which may be later corrected for specific instances. Casuist traditions inform the perspective which Giovanni Pico della Mirandola shared when seeking to provide humanist considerations of canon law in Bologna. Unfortunately Pico della Mirandola, for all of his erudition (unsurprisingly like Francis Bacon was all too curious about magic--Paolo Rossi is correct that Bacon was not technically a Rosicrucian but he is also right that Bacon was heavily influenced by the occult in many of his writings), helped to sow the seeds which have become mighty oaks of confusion beginning with his _Orations on the Dignity of Man._ 

If life commences with viability, should not "mothers" (must be placed in quotes as they have forfeited the title if they follow through with the deed) be provided the law-sanctioned opportunity to end the lifespan of the child before the child's third birthday? That is a coherent perspective, for anyone who has seen a newborn human will provide the unsurprising insight that there may be nothing more helpless on this planet, and those are typically the product of a full nine-month period of gestation. 

Having said that, myriad grievous flaws are more than readily plucked and flung away within the generally standard "pro-life" arguments of the past few generations as well. The entire discourse has to be changed radically as this poster has contended a number of times in this section, but time is too spare to delve into that half of the paradigm at the present.


----------



## AlphaBeta

For anyone who still thinks the abortion debate is about a woman's right to choose, and not blood-lust and contempt for the unborn, I present to you:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1130653362725314562
Disgusting people.

That decrepit old fossil RBG needs to hurry up and eat shit and die, and we need to replace her with a strong Supreme Court judge to overturn the archaic and barbaric Roe vs. Wade.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DesolationRow said:


> Civilization is (at times for good and for ill) wedded to the establishment of behavioral standards. The argument in the realm of lawmaking, "People will do it anyway" which is frequently trotted out for the abortion debate for some reason is insubstantial. Humanist lawmakers and papacies--the latter perhaps best embodied by Nicholas V and Leo X--comprehended the pitiless point that even at their justest laws must carry burdens which may be later corrected for specific instances. Casuist traditions inform the perspective which Giovanni Pico della Mirandola shared when seeking to provide humanist considerations of canon law in Bologna. Unfortunately Pico della Mirandola, for all of his erudition (unsurprisingly like Francis Bacon was all too curious about magic--Paolo Rossi is correct that Bacon was not technically a Rosicrucian but he is also right that Bacon was heavily influenced by the occult in many of his writings), helped to sow the seeds which have become mighty oaks of confusion beginning with his _Orations on the Dignity of Man._
> 
> If life commences with viability, should not "mothers" (must be placed in quotes as they have forfeited the title if they follow through with the deed) be provided the law-sanctioned opportunity to end the lifespan of the child before the child's third birthday? That is a coherent perspective, for anyone who has seen a newborn human will provide the unsurprising insight that there may be nothing more helpless on this planet, and those are typically the product of a full nine-month period of gestation.
> 
> Having said that, myriad grievous flaws are more than readily plucked and flung away within the generally standard "pro-life" arguments of the past few generations as well. The entire discourse has to be changed radically as this poster has contended a number of times in this section, but time is too spare to delve into that half of the paradigm at the present.


Nothing you said proves life begins at conception. Its just a whole lot of nothing.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Everything I said about charter schools are true. They are not really pubic schools since they are independ from public schools, so like I said they don't have to abide by the regulations that public schools do. That is why they are allowed for example to be reglious. But yes they are technically public schools but there is a debate if they should be or not. I did misspeak about it not really being public but everything else I said is true about charter schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well they get paid less than public school teachers by about $10k per year.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by go after? Examples ?
> 
> What kind of wrong think? Do you have an example?
> 
> I dont want to get into this whole republican vs democrat thing when it comes to schools but in the US its aways the christian reublicans who are pushing to teach bullshit like god created the universe in science class.
> 
> 
> 
> In some states teachers dont even have to be certified to teach at charter schools, do you see a problem with that?
> 
> Charter schools wouldn't be such an issue if they had to follow the same rules as public schools. That is where most of the issues are. Plus them being for profit is a huge issue when they are getting tax payer dollars.


So in other words , you didn't bother with the links? How do you want me to talk to you, if you just disregard anything I bring up? You still haven't explained why its true, just that it is and that I should unequivocally believe you, but you have a well known history of bending things to suit your narrative. You did this in your first reply by suggesting that 83% of charter schools do worse, when that's not actually true. If you looked at the links it explains the differences, charters are more closer to public than you seem to think they are. It seems like your complaints resonate with private schools more

You want examples? Here

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...-shepherd-for-showing-a-jordan-peterson-video
^Lindsay Shepard got accused of committing a crime for showing a Jordan Peterson lecture, mind you she's a leftist

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/201...after-recording-professors-anti-trump-tirade/
^Teachers union going after college student who recorded an anti-trump rant

https://www.thecollegefix.com/colle...ervative-student-to-lobby-for-leftist-causes/
^College forced conservative to advocate for left wing politics 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2319...confronts-latino-student-amanda-prestigiacomo
^Teacher went after a Latino Trump supporter 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2947...s-public-school-textbook-amanda-prestigiacomo
^Here's what liberal teachers wrote, in a new textbook. No bias here.

https://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03...cords-teacher-ripping-maga-make-america-great
^This teacher has anti-rant about Trump...to a 6th grade class. 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30222/how-politically-biased-are-universities-new-study-james-barrett
^Breakdown of Democrats vs Republican teachers. 

It would be ridiculous to believe that leftists while having such a stranglehold on the education of majority of the country, wouldn't dare try to push people into their own political affiliation on people, you can't complain about the other while ignoring what you support. If they didn't, there wouldn't be teachers in antifa beating people up with bike locks, and rioting students on campus because a conservative dare to speak there for an underrepresented population. That stuff didn't just magically appear, that stuff is taught . 

Not having certification does sound bad on the surface, but if you hire someone who has an expertise in that field, a certification may not actually be necessary. To my knowledge(which is limited), charter schools tend to hire specific teachers for specific courses. Neither I or you, don't know if teachers are qualified or not, without looking into the background of those teachers. Looking at the statistics of how well charter schools do on their SAT's, their teachers must be doing something right, at least it seems that way. Certification, doesn't mean you're good at your particular job either. I'll give you an example , if say Elon Musk wanted to teach a course in engineering for your school, would you turn him down because he doesn't(presumably) have certification to be a teacher? Look, i'm not saying that every teacher in a charter school is this perfect expert in their field that has Elon Musk caliber staff at every role :lol but you could be making it out to be worse than it may be . Without taking into consideration why that teacher got his or her job in the first place, we simply do not know about being qualified or not. One last thing, you never did tell me how teachers at charter schools got screwed.



birthday_massacre said:


> Nothing you said proves life begins at conception. Its just a whole lot of nothing.


"When Human Life Begins
American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species **** sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins."

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/hhs-defines-life-beginning-conception/
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html


----------



## Mr.Monkey

Hey look everybody Another reason to say fuck Trump. Here I know alot of people was planning to buy a reasonably affordable smart phone





Seems Trump doesnt get the grasp of china. The embargos and sanctions feed china. When nuclear technology was banned against China, China made hydrogen bombs which are even more powerful than atomic bomb.

When satellite technology was banned, China worked a system which is more advanced than the US's GPS.

When China was boycotted by the US, European Union and Japan in space programmes, China made her own space station which will be the only one space station by 2020 as the International space station made by the US will retire at that time.

Japan restricted China from acquiring High speed railway technology, China invented her own one which is even faster than any other high speed railways in the world. 

The US banned the export of Intel CPU core to China for making super computer. China quickly invented their own supercomputer with self-designed CPU core.

China even invented the world's first quantum satellite 'Micius' which is unhackable. 

Every time when China is sanctioned, China will grow stronger indirectly Thanks to Trump.
snowmanckh


Muh 4d chess or least he's trying. You give a description of fascism to some of his supporters without out calling the name or who tried this system of government and you know most of em would love that idea with trump as the head.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> So in other words , you didn't bother with the links? How do you want me to talk to you, if you just disregard anything I bring up? You still haven't explained why its true, just that it is and that I should unequivocally believe you, but you have a well known history of bending things to suit your narrative. You did this in your first reply by suggesting that 83% of charter schools do worse, when that's not actually true. If you looked at the links it explains the differences, charters are more closer to public than you seem to think they are. It seems like your complaints resonate with private schools more
> 
> You want examples? Here
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...-shepherd-for-showing-a-jordan-peterson-video
> ^Lindsay Shepard got accused of committing a crime for showing a Jordan Peterson lecture, mind you she's a leftist
> 
> https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/201...after-recording-professors-anti-trump-tirade/
> ^Teachers union going after college student who recorded an anti-trump rant
> 
> https://www.thecollegefix.com/colle...ervative-student-to-lobby-for-leftist-causes/
> ^College forced conservative to advocate for left wing politics
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/2319...confronts-latino-student-amanda-prestigiacomo
> ^Teacher went after a Latino Trump supporter
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/2947...s-public-school-textbook-amanda-prestigiacomo
> ^Here's what liberal teachers wrote, in a new textbook. No bias here.
> 
> https://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03...cords-teacher-ripping-maga-make-america-great
> ^This teacher has anti-rant about Trump...to a 6th grade class.
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/30222/how-politically-biased-are-universities-new-study-james-barrett
> ^Breakdown of Democrats vs Republican teachers.
> 
> It would be ridiculous to believe that leftists while having such a stranglehold on the education of majority of the country, wouldn't dare try to push people into their own political affiliation on people, you can't complain about the other while ignoring what you support. If they didn't, there wouldn't be teachers in antifa beating people up with bike locks, and rioting students on campus because a conservative dare to speak there for an underrepresented population. That stuff didn't just magically appear, that stuff is taught .
> 
> Not having certification does sound bad on the surface, but if you hire someone who has an expertise in that field, a certification may not actually be necessary. To my knowledge(which is limited), charter schools tend to hire specific teachers for specific courses. Neither I or you, don't know if teachers are qualified or not, without looking into the background of those teachers. Looking at the statistics of how well charter schools do on their SAT's, their teachers must be doing something right, at least it seems that way. Certification, doesn't mean you're good at your particular job either. I'll give you an example , if say Elon Musk wanted to teach a course in engineering for your school, would you turn him down because he doesn't(presumably) have certification to be a teacher? Look, i'm not saying that every teacher in a charter school is this perfect expert in their field that has Elon Musk caliber staff at every role :lol but you could be making it out to be worse than it may be . Without taking into consideration why that teacher got his or her job in the first place, we simply do not know about being qualified or not. One last thing, you never did tell me how teachers at charter schools got screwed.
> 
> 
> "When Human Life Begins
> American College of Pediatricians – March 2017
> 
> The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species **** sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins."
> 
> https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins
> https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/hhs-defines-life-beginning-conception/
> https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html


You keep sayign my issues are with private schools when everything I said was true about charter schools LOL

Every example you come up with stupid shit like saying "rioting students on campus because a conservative dare to speak there for an underrepresented population" can you show the same thing happening with the right. So stop pretending that shit does not happen with both sides

You are are you we dont know' if a teacher a charter school hires or not is qualified or not that is why they need to be certified. You are making my point.

You can talk about their experience all you want and its cute you make a point like Musk when 99.9% of other people are nothing like that. But sure use an extreme case to try to make a weak point.


As for your links about when life begins, from your own links

first link states this

This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
dont see any s

yet shows no real proof
It even says “However, what is controversial is whether this genetically unique cell should be considered a human person.”


2nd link still no proof

The Department of Health and Human Services has published a draft strategic plan for 2018-2022 that includes some, shall we say, *controversial language*. See if you can spot it:


3rd link is full of examples that dont back up your claim


So again you have nothing to show that a zygote is a human being

Hows exactly is it a human being when it has no brain, no heart, no heartbeat, no head, no arms, no legs, etc etc etc

A zygote is just a group of cells

calling a zygote a homing being is like calling Milk a ckae


----------



## Tater

Mr.Monkey said:


> Hey look everybody Another reason to say fuck Trump. Here I know alot of people was planning to buy a reasonably affordable smart phone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems Trump doesnt get the grasp of china. The embargos and sanctions feed china. When nuclear technology was banned against China, China made hydrogen bombs which are even more powerful than atomic bomb.
> 
> When satellite technology was banned, China worked a system which is more advanced than the US's GPS.
> 
> When China was boycotted by the US, European Union and Japan in space programmes, China made her own space station which will be the only one space station by 2020 as the International space station made by the US will retire at that time.
> 
> Japan restricted China from acquiring High speed railway technology, China invented her own one which is even faster than any other high speed railways in the world.
> 
> The US banned the export of Intel CPU core to China for making super computer. China quickly invented their own supercomputer with self-designed CPU core.
> 
> China even invented the world's first quantum satellite 'Micius' which is unhackable.
> 
> Every time when China is sanctioned, China will grow stronger indirectly Thanks to Trump.
> snowmanckh
> 
> 
> Muh 4d chess or least he's trying. You give a description of fascism to some of his supporters without out calling the name or who tried this system of government and you know most of em would love that idea with trump as the head.


The thing that scares me the most about China is not China itself. What scares me the most about China is how the USA will react when they finally figure out that they cannot keep up with them technologically or economically. The USA is not going to relinquish their position as the top superpower in the world in any sane or reasonable fashion.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> Civilization is (at times for good and for ill) wedded to the establishment of behavioral standards. The argument in the realm of lawmaking, "People will do it anyway" which is frequently trotted out for the abortion debate for some reason is insubstantial. Humanist lawmakers and papacies--the latter perhaps best embodied by Nicholas V and Leo X--comprehended the pitiless point that even at their justest laws must carry burdens which may be later corrected for specific instances. Casuist traditions inform the perspective which Giovanni Pico della Mirandola shared when seeking to provide humanist considerations of canon law in Bologna. Unfortunately Pico della Mirandola, for all of his erudition (unsurprisingly like Francis Bacon was all too curious about magic--Paolo Rossi is correct that Bacon was not technically a Rosicrucian but he is also right that Bacon was heavily influenced by the occult in many of his writings), helped to sow the seeds which have become mighty oaks of confusion beginning with his _Orations on the Dignity of Man._
> 
> *If life commences with viability, should not "mothers" (must be placed in quotes as they have forfeited the title if they follow through with the deed) be provided the law-sanctioned opportunity to end the lifespan of the child before the child's third birthday? That is a coherent perspective, for anyone who has seen a newborn human will provide the unsurprising insight that there may be nothing more helpless on this planet, and those are typically the product of a full nine-month period of gestation. *
> 
> Having said that, myriad grievous flaws are more than readily plucked and flung away within the generally standard "pro-life" arguments of the past few generations as well. The entire discourse has to be changed radically as this poster has contended a number of times in this section, but time is too spare to delve into that half of the paradigm at the present.


Taking into account your continued very impressive use of language and knowledge of historical figures and their use of concepts and societal traditions, I have to say the bolded paragraph seems extremely beneath you.

The 3 year old hypothetical is nothing short of ridiculous and you should know it. Anyone who stood up and said that in a public debate would quite rightly by groaned or laughed off the podium. An explanation on why it's so ridiculous isn't needed because the idea itself is frankly just so bad in my opinion.

I have a child and agree with what you said about newborns - I might be dense but I don't see what that has to do with anything about abortion as it's known and practiced. Put simply the decision to abort on not is completely private and none of my business.


----------



## DesolationRow

Thanks for the kind words. 

It is understandable to mistakenly consider the logical ramifications of a rigorous and dispassionate exercise in logic the way someone may believe they are listening to early Beethoven rather than late Mozart. The distilled expostulation is that the purported "pro-choice" contingent is being disingenuous in propping their a large number of their mass media-consumed talking points specifically around that which is viable and that which is not. Aristotle as well as many others presented arguments on behalf of the performing of abortions without such lackluster pandering to people.

Much as the supposed "pro-life" partisans primarily build their most passionate*remonstrances on a foundation of Maximilien Robespierre-style rhetoric, as though they are Jain monks following _ahimsa_--or "not harming"--any life, wearing mesh over their mouths so that they may not inhale insects. Providing "rights" to oocyte-sperm zygotes is the baby boomers-and-onward conservatives' answer to the generations-spanning imbroglio without comprehending how both inadequate and counterproductive, for their own oft-stated desired ends. The Alabama legislation, for instance, demonstrates the lack of seriousness with which much "pro-life" lawmaking it spun together. That particular pushed legislation is suggesting that the doctor performing the act of abortion is the sinister beast doing great wrong to the innocent woman by terminating the biological consequences of her own actions, as in the vast overwhelming majority of abortion cases. At worst, though they may be amoral beings in the legal drama, doctors performing abortions are more like a hit-man hired by someone wanting an entity removed from the equation, while, again, in almost all abortion cases are stories of women seeking abortion for their own betterment. This is why Donald Trump, for all of his unpredictable zaniness and lack of historical comprehension, was correct in noting while running for president that it was only logical that, should abortion be outlawed, women seeking that act must receive punishment. For as Planned Parenthood has enumerated through their own thorough research, somewhere around 95 percent of abortions are "elective." Not that the "pro-life" movement seems to be serious with these, their own specific cases of "virtue signaling," as it were.*Both sides are only marginally different iterations of liberalism as with most debates, much as nationalism versus internationalism somehow tend to represent only marginally disparate gradations of a post-French Revolution as John Lukacs comprehended in a number of works such as _The End of the Twentieth Century._


----------



## Miss Sally

Yeast is alive, amoebas are alive, the cultures in my yogurt are alive. A fetus growing is not alive, even though the sperms cells that fertilized the egg are alive and the division of cells are growth are the definition of life.

Let's say on Mars we found something that acts much like a fetus with it's growth. What a discovery! Psyche! It's not alive you dolts!


----------



## AlphaBeta

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1130959544102768640
To paraphrase Maya Angelou: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them."

The anti-life crowd have shown us exactly who they are.


----------



## Twilight Sky

I mean, I guess after awhile miscarriages will sore.

I can't get behind this. Both sides have their valid reasons, but a middle ground just can't be found.


----------



## El Grappleador

I was thinking about immigrants situation and this is my unpopular opinion: Mexico is not a third safe country to them.

They are exposed to human traffic, coyotes, organs traffic, narcs, and other issues.

A few hours, Trump expressed his dissapointing against Lopez Obrador's arms wide open policy. And first time ever, I believe him this time.

AMLO wanna be movie's good guy. Sadly, for almost six months violence gone up, he despicable who deny your statements, economy grew up only 0.03%, he avoids private investment, he forgave croocked functionaries. He doesn't care working class nor businesses men. He only cares baseball. In other words: definitely, I don't trust in AMLO. 

And both persons will end up breaking up USA/Mexico relationship.


----------



## Draykorinee

AlphaBeta said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1130959544102768640
> To paraphrase Maya Angelou: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them."
> 
> The anti-life crowd have shown us exactly who they are.


A perfect response to be honest.


----------



## skypod

If America doesn't mind turning an 8 year old boy fleeing a war zone away at the border, why does a fetus that hasn't set foot on American land prioritized higher? Why not think of a baby that hasn't been born as a non-US citizen? 

Can't help but think so much of the country is hung up on this 1950's conservative Washing-Up powder commercial with the perfect White Christian family, and anything such as abortion or gay couples adopting unwanted kids threatens that. 

Is a blanket ban on abortion across all of the states actually sustainable? How many unwanted babies are had each year? And how many more would there be once you ban abortion. Now take away the gay couples willing to adopt too. Are there enough hetereosexual couples able to take these children in? I thought the Right were meant to be the facts and logic people?


----------



## Tater

skypod said:


> If America doesn't mind turning an 8 year old boy fleeing a war zone away at the border, why does a fetus that hasn't set foot on American land prioritized higher? Why not think of a baby that hasn't been born as a non-US citizen?


Brown babies don't count.



> Can't help but think so much of the country is hung up on this 1950's conservative Washing-Up powder commercial with the perfect White Christian family, and anything such as abortion or gay couples adopting unwanted kids threatens that.
> 
> Is a blanket ban on abortion across all of the states actually sustainable? How many unwanted babies are had each year? And how many more would there be once you ban abortion. Now take away the gay couples willing to adopt too. Are there enough hetereosexual couples able to take these children in? I thought the Right were meant to be the facts and logic people?


If the baby is kept, the dirty whore mother needs to get a job. If the baby is put up for adoption, then cut taxes and defund adoption services. No one gives a shit about the little critter after it is out of the womb.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

Keep all tax payers money out abortion and completely defund PP. I think that will appease most conservatives.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CenaBoy4Life said:


> Keep all tax payers money out abortion and completely defund PP. I think that will appease most conservatives.


Tax payer money does not go toward abortions

the more you know


----------



## Miss Sally

skypod said:


> If America doesn't mind turning an 8 year old boy fleeing a war zone away at the border, why does a fetus that hasn't set foot on American land prioritized higher? Why not think of a baby that hasn't been born as a non-US citizen?
> 
> Can't help but think so much of the country is hung up on this 1950's conservative Washing-Up powder commercial with the perfect White Christian family, and anything such as abortion or gay couples adopting unwanted kids threatens that.
> 
> Is a blanket ban on abortion across all of the states actually sustainable? How many unwanted babies are had each year? And how many more would there be once you ban abortion. Now take away the gay couples willing to adopt too. Are there enough hetereosexual couples able to take these children in? I thought the Right were meant to be the facts and logic people?


Here's something interesting to think about. Over half the abortions done in America are by non-whites. The definition of what is considered white changes so it could be possibly higher but that's another topic.

Planned Parenthood and other Abortion clinics are popping up in poor areas, mostly non-white using Federal funds, along with private funds. 

In some cities and areas more black babies are aborted than born, the abortion craze is catching on in South America and among the Latino community. 

Planned Parenthood was founded by a notorious racist and eugenicist know as Margret Sanger. She spoke at Klan rallies and many women like her pushed abortion as a way too weed out "undesirables" and blacks. 

If you look closely at early American companies like Kellogg's and others like it, you'll notice insane notions and studies funded by them to control the behaviors of the American population. PP was designed to keep certain populations manageable and to cull parts of it, both work in tandem.

Nowadays PP and those companies are considered "Left", yet they've not given up on their odd studies nor their missions. In fact I'd say that many laws passed and lobbying done by such groups have done little more than given more power to the rich.

I find it strange that the side that claims to be on the right side of history goes out of their way to push abortion on marginalized communities. Pushes welfare and single motherhood, encourages social media use and harmful cultural norms as positives, all while insulating themselves. Yet the racist "Tighty Righties" are the ones that stand against it. 

It's almost as if a certain group of people in America who don't have any kinship with anyone except people like themselves runs things. They don't even like people who look like them. They're the ruling class. Yet nothing could happen like that here. I'm just being silly I guess. :shrug


----------



## Strike Force

AlphaBeta said:


> To paraphrase Maya Angelou: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them."
> 
> The anti-life crowd have shown us exactly who they are.


A gross generalization that can't be supported by facts or reason. I'm soundly pro-choice (or anti-life, as you put it) and I'm certain I don't fit the image you seem to have constructed in your imagination.



skypod said:


> Is a blanket ban on abortion across all of the states actually sustainable? How many unwanted babies are had each year? And how many more would there be once you ban abortion. Now take away the gay couples willing to adopt too. Are there enough hetereosexual couples able to take these children in? I thought the Right were meant to be the facts and logic people?


I'm convinced that an outright ban would only marginally reduce abortions. The procedure would take place in the shadows and far more women would suffer injury or even death in the process, but most people won't just start having the babies they don't want because their politicians said they should.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Would anybody be in favor of what Colorado did, which is gave low cost IUD's to people.

That helped their teen pregnancy and abortion rate by staggering numbers.

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Miss Sally said:


> Here's something interesting to think about. Over half the abortions done in America are by non-whites. The definition of what is considered white changes so it could be possibly higher but that's another topic.
> 
> Planned Parenthood and other Abortion clinics are popping up in poor areas, mostly non-white using Federal funds, along with private funds.
> 
> In some cities and areas more black babies are aborted than born, the abortion craze is catching on in South America and among the Latino community.
> 
> Planned Parenthood was founded by a notorious racist and eugenicist know as Margret Sanger. She spoke at Klan rallies and many women like her pushed abortion as a way too weed out "undesirables" and blacks.
> 
> If you look closely at early American companies like Kellogg's and others like it, you'll notice insane notions and studies funded by them to control the behaviors of the American population. PP was designed to keep certain populations manageable and to cull parts of it, both work in tandem.
> 
> Nowadays PP and those companies are considered "Left", yet they've not given up on their odd studies nor their missions. In fact I'd say that many laws passed and lobbying done by such groups have done little more than given more power to the rich.
> 
> I find it strange that the side that claims to be on the right side of history goes out of their way to push abortion on marginalized communities. Pushes welfare and single motherhood, encourages social media use and harmful cultural norms as positives, all while insulating themselves. Yet the racist "Tighty Righties" are the ones that stand against it.
> 
> It's almost as if a certain group of people in America who don't have any kinship with anyone except people like themselves runs things. They don't even like people who look like them. They're the ruling class. Yet nothing could happen like that here. I'm just being silly I guess. :shrug


I hope this post doesn't get ignored, because it is so good.

36 percent of black babies are aborted each year....31 percent of black people are killed by the cops.

yet we hear about racial disparity when it comes to one and not the other.

The war on poverty was supposed to bring black people to the forefront and on even footing, yet the single motherhood rate in the black community is higher than it ever has been.

Good post.


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## Draykorinee

Gross to imply its some racial program thing just because some lady was a known racist decades ago.


----------



## Crona

LMAO @ targeting PP as currently being an embodiment of eugenics in a weird attempt to reinforce the whole right vs. left thing. Also, the comparison of abortion rates to police murders? The reach is infinite.


----------



## CamillePunk

Our intelligence agencies and the corporate media do not serve the people or the truth. They would happily lie us into World War III. There's a reason they aren't talking about the fact Trump just outright said we have a military-industrial complex that loves war and freaks out if you propose any peaceful or non-interventionist solutions. They don't want anyone talking about this stuff at all. This is the deep state that runs our country's foreign policy, with the help of their corporate media partners. The vilest of the vile.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> I find it strange that the side that claims to be on the right side of history goes out of their way to push abortion on marginalized communities. Pushes welfare and single motherhood, encourages social media use and harmful cultural norms as positives, all while insulating themselves. Yet the racist "Tighty Righties" are the ones that stand against it.
> 
> It's almost as if a certain group of people in America who don't have any kinship with anyone except people like themselves runs things. They don't even like people who look like them. They're the ruling class. Yet nothing could happen like that here. *I'm just being silly I guess*. :shrug


Who is "pushing" abortions on anyone? That's completely untrue and inflammatory. No one is forcing anything on anyone. No one is pushing single motherhood on anyone, how does that even happen anyway?

Hmmmm and what 'side' could you be talking about I wonder?!!!!



I do agree with the bolded part of your quote however :heston


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> Who is "pushing" abortions on anyone? That's completely untrue and inflammatory. No one is forcing anything on anyone. No one is pushing single motherhood on anyone, how does that even happen anyway?
> 
> Hmmmm and what 'side' could you be talking about I wonder?!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree with the bolded part of your quote however :heston


I love with the projection of people like Missy Sally with comments like that.

They act like abortion of pushed onto people when its actually them who are forcing women to carry a pregnancy they dont want.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Gross to imply its some racial program thing just because some lady was a known racist decades ago.


I like this. I'll remember to remind people of this every time something that has dire consequences on groups of people which were designed intentionally to cause said effect. It's wrong to imply that despite having the desired result of the the nefarious person/group, that there's no correlation whatsoever. 



Crona said:


> LMAO @ targeting PP as currently being an embodiment of eugenics in a weird attempt to reinforce the whole right vs. left thing. Also, the comparison of abortion rates to police murders? The reach is infinite.


It's not about Right/Left, it's about a group of people who've convinced everyone this is simply a Political issue. When you look at the people talking, it's easy to see there's more than Politics at play. 

Comparing abortion rates to police murders isn't invalid. The judicial system leans heavily against poor people and non-whites. The over policing and abortion have stagnated the black population. So we're to believe systematic racism or at least people using the system in an inappropriate way happens, yet nobody would use abortion in such a way? Only prison, policing, ghettos etc? Okay.



yeahbaby! said:


> Who is "pushing" abortions on anyone? That's completely untrue and inflammatory. No one is forcing anything on anyone. No one is pushing single motherhood on anyone, how does that even happen anyway?
> 
> Hmmmm and what 'side' could you be talking about I wonder?!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree with the bolded part of your quote however :heston


The side that's always claimed everything it does is for the children or what's right. There isn't a political side when it comes to this type of behavior but to imply the "Right is racist" yet the Right seems to want to prevent the deaths of children from all colors seems a little wonky. It's almost as if this issue is more than Right/Left.




birthday_massacre said:


> I love with the projection of people like Missy Sally with comments like that.
> 
> They act like abortion of pushed onto people when its actually them who are forcing women to carry a pregnancy they dont want.


Pushing an ideology happens all the time. Aren't people like you the first to point out when Religious people push their dogma onto others? Who about conservatives? Yet not with abortion?

It's only by coincidence that abortion clinics and the acceptance of of the practice as a form of contraceptive largely targets non-whites and poor whites. Just like liquor stores, unhealthy cheap food, smoking and any other harmful products and or policies don't target certain demographics. Cannot be because this is something you believe in so therefore it is right and true and could never be used for evil.

I'm very, very pro-choice, probably more so than most people here. I simply don't beat around the bush when it comes to calling a spade a spade. People should stop buying into the political narrative and see things for what they really are. I simply find it amusing the lengths people go through to white wash abortion. :laugh:

By the way,about half the women in the US are pro-life. That's a little tidbit most of you seem to ignore.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> It's only by coincidence that abortion clinics and the acceptance of of the practice as a form of contraceptive largely targets non-whites and poor whites.


I know you work in the medical field so perhaps you expand on the idea that abortion can be a form of contraceptive. To me it sounds like something a very small portion of desperate women would do, and I mean consciously, that pro-lifers like to trot out to try and demonize all women who decide to get an abortion.

I would highly, highly doubt it's not something that can be proven in any significant way and simply used as a scare tactic.

All this thing is about is keeping legal the right for women to deal with their pregnancies the way they want. It's no one else's business full stop.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Pushing an ideology happens all the time. Aren't people like you the first to point out when Religious people push their dogma onto others? Who about conservatives? Yet not with abortion?
> 
> It's only by coincidence that abortion clinics and the acceptance of of the practice as a form of contraceptive largely targets non-whites and poor whites. Just like liquor stores, unhealthy cheap food, smoking and any other harmful products and or policies don't target certain demographics. Cannot be because this is something you believe in so therefore it is right and true and could never be used for evil.
> 
> .


No one is pushing aborton onto anyone. If you are going to make this claim back it up with evidence its being forced on to people. You have yet to do that. You just make conjecture. 

And WTF are you talking about it targets people. What you are saying does not even make any sense. 

show the evidence of your claims about abortion




Miss Sally said:


> I'm very, very pro-choice, probably more so than most people here. I simply don't beat around the bush when it comes to calling a spade a spade. People should stop buying into the political narrative and see things for what they really are. I simply find it amusing the lengths people go through to white wash abortion. :laugh:
> 
> 
> .


You are the one who is not seeing how things are lol show the evidence of your claims. 

You keep point out how minorities and poor people tend to have more abortions, now you dont think that could have to do with because those groups have less access to things like sex ed and contraception do you?







Miss Sally said:


> By the way,about half the women in the US are pro-life. That's a little tidbit most of you seem to ignore.
> 
> 
> .


And you point is?

That only makes sense that half women are pro choice and half are pro life.

I dont even understand the point you are trying to make here. If you are a woman that is pro life, great dont have an abortion but dont tell other women if they can or can't have an abortion.

Even some pro choice women can be pro life, it just means the think other women have the right to choice what to do with their bodies.

So why do you think you have the right to tell other women what they can do with their bodies?


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> I know you work in the medical field so perhaps you expand on the idea that abortion can be a form of contraceptive. To me it sounds like something a very small portion of desperate women would do, and I mean consciously, that pro-lifers like to trot out to try and demonize all women who decide to get an abortion.
> 
> I would highly, highly doubt it's not something that can be proven in any significant way and simply used as a scare tactic.
> 
> All this thing is about is keeping legal the right for women to deal with their pregnancies the way they want. It's no one else's business full stop.


I think abortions should be for anyone who needs them. The issue with them being touted as a contraceptive is that in poor or uneducated areas and countries it's seen as the one solution. 

So you may stop unwanted pregnancies but without the use of condoms or safe sex they're still spreading STDs STIs etc. You also have treatment resistant diseases from sex. We're starting to get a better grip and understanding of HIV etc but that won't matter if some form of super syphilis starts plaguing the population. 

My issues with the Abortion debate are the focusing on simply Abortion rights over the growing population of infected people due to poor sex education. 

The way Abortion seems to be aimed at marginalized communities. 

The entire slight of hand when it comes to calling Abortion what it is. If the process of pregnancy was observed in a place where no life was, Scientists would be saying it's proof of life. Yet when it comes to human pregnancy somehow this is debatable. I get that for some people it's uneasy but it is what it is, it's ending life or at least potential. I believe in assisted suicide, in many cases a person should have that right, Abortion shouldn't be any different. Let's just be open about it. :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> I think abortions should be for anyone who needs them. The issue with them being touted as a contraceptive is that in poor or uneducated areas and countries it's seen as the one solution.
> 
> So you may stop unwanted pregnancies but without the use of condoms or safe sex they're still spreading STDs STIs etc. You also have treatment resistant diseases from sex. We're starting to get a better grip and understanding of HIV etc but that won't matter if some form of super syphilis starts plaguing the population.
> 
> My issues with the Abortion debate are the focusing on simply Abortion rights over the growing population of infected people due to poor sex education.
> 
> The way Abortion seems to be aimed at marginalized communities.
> 
> The entire slight of hand when it comes to calling Abortion what it is. If the process of pregnancy was observed in a place where no life was, Scientists would be saying it's proof of life. Yet when it comes to human pregnancy somehow this is debatable. I get that for some people it's uneasy but it is what it is, it's ending life or at least potential. I believe in assisted suicide, in many cases a person should have that right, Abortion shouldn't be any different. Let's just be open about it. :shrug


Funny how conservatives dont care about contraception and do everything they can from teens getting access to it, and access to sex ed. Also funny how constatives dont give a shit about a child after they are born, only while a women is pregnant and forcing her to carry the pregnancy.

They also do everything they can do to shut down PP and things like that that also help with sex ed and contraception. 

Why are so many republicans who are against abortion also anti contraception

Trump tried to let companies opt out of providing free birth control to its employees 

If they were really against abortion you would think they would be all about preventive care


let me ask you
do you think the govt should give teens/women access to free birth control from the age they are able to conceive a child until they want to stop to make sure they wont use abortion as a birth control measure ?


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> No one is pushing aborton onto anyone. If you are going to make this claim back it up with evidence its being forced on to people. You have yet to do that. You just make conjecture.
> 
> And WTF are you talking about it targets people. What you are saying does not even make any sense.
> 
> show the evidence of your claims about abortion


I'm unsure how you don't see this. You're here debating how Abortion should be legal. Second and Third wave Feminists have made it into big issues, there has been fights between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice over what is morally right and what is a right. Both are pushing what they believe to be true. Abortion activists on College on in the streets take to twitter, wearing proactive slogans and protesting to get their message out. Abortion was pretty rare in non-white communities and certain countries and thanks to activists with their message, more and more women are having them.

I'd say that's a push and I said pushing ideologies in my previous post, never implied they were abducting women and doing abortions in vans or something. :laugh: 





birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one who is not seeing how things are lol show the evidence of your claims.
> 
> You keep point out how minorities and poor people tend to have more abortions, now you dont think that could have to do with because those groups have less access to things like sex ed and contraception do you?


The second wave Feminist movement and abortion debate is my evidence. Well PP and other Abortion clinics have been popping up, PP, most hospitals and clinics give out free condoms. You can buy the day after pill at the store. Not sure how much easier it can be to have access to contraception.

As for sex-ed, yes this needs to be a focus. Want less Abortions? Educate people on sex!









birthday_massacre said:


> And you point is?
> 
> That only makes sense that half women are pro choice and half are pro life.
> 
> I dont even understand the point you are trying to make here. If you are a woman that is pro life, great dont have an abortion but dont tell other women if they can or can't have an abortion.
> 
> Even some pro choice women can be pro life, it just means the think other women have the right to choice what to do with their bodies.
> 
> So why do you think you have the right to tell other women what they can do with their bodies?


The point is that the Abortion debate is large, messy and isn't as clear cut as "old men tryin to control the clam" and that pro-life women are often ignored, especially by pro-choice males.



birthday_massacre said:


> Funny how conservatives dont care about contraception and do everything they can from teens getting access to it, and access to sex ed. Also funny how constatives dont give a shit about a child after they are born, only while a women is pregnant and forcing her to carry the pregnancy.
> 
> They also do everything they can do to shut down PP and things like that that also help with sex ed and contraception.
> 
> Why are so many republicans who are against abortion also anti contraception


This is why I said it's not a Left/Right issue nor simply a Political issue. Lots more needs to be done but this should be part of the debate. 

This is an issue many Pro-Choice and Pro-Life have. Lifers don't have a plan for after the child is born, nor to increase sex-ed, options for contraception. Choicers only care about having access to Abortions and neglect several issues with sex including preventing STIs/STDs, as well as how Abortion seems to be aimed at poor/non-white communities the most. 

This doesn't mean I don't believe in Abortion, only that people should have the tools to take responsibility as well as being responsible to know what you're doing. :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> I'm unsure how you don't see this. You're here debating how Abortion should be legal. Second and Third wave Feminists have made it into big issues, there has been fights between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice over what is morally right and what is a right. Both are pushing what they believe to be true. Abortion activists on College on in the streets take to twitter, wearing proactive slogans and protesting to get their message out. Abortion was pretty rare in non-white communities and certain countries and thanks to activists with their message, more and more women are having them.
> 
> I'd say that's a push and I said pushing ideologies in my previous post, never implied they were abducting women and doing abortions in vans or something. :laugh:


Fighting for the right to choose is not fighting to push people to have an abortion. So stop acting like women are pushing other women having abortions. So stop pretending that is what it is. Its about CHOICE.
You are being disengeous about what you are saying.



Miss Sally said:


> The second wave Feminist movement and abortion debate is my evidence. Well PP and other Abortion clinics have been popping up, PP, most hospitals and clinics give out free condoms. You can buy the day after pill at the store. Not sure how much easier it can be to have access to contraception.
> 
> As for sex-ed, yes this needs to be a focus. Want less Abortions? Educate people on sex!


You have zero evidence people are pushing women into getting abortions. ZERO. You just keep showing how people are pushing for CHOICE. 

IN red states conservatives keep shutting down PP and making them harder and harder to open. Are you against them that?



Miss Sally said:


> The point is that the Abortion debate is large, messy and isn't as clear cut as "old men tryin to control the clam" and that pro-life women are often ignored, especially by pro-choice males.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I said it's not a Left/Right issue nor simply a Political issue. Lots more needs to be done but this should be part of the debate.



It is a left and right issue. How can you say its not when its mostly the GOP trying to make women carry pregnancies even ones who were raped.




Miss Sally said:


> This is an issue many Pro-Choice and Pro-Life have. Lifers don't have a plan for after the child is born, nor to increase sex-ed, options for contraception. Choicers only care about having access to Abortions and neglect several issues with sex including preventing STIs/STDs, as well as how Abortion seems to be aimed at poor/non-white communities the most.
> 
> This doesn't mean I don't believe in Abortion, only that people should have the tools to take responsibility as well as being responsible to know what you're doing. :shrug


already answered this point

I did edit my post probably while you were answering so I will write this in here in case you missed it

let me ask you
do you think the govt should give teens/women access to free birth control from the age they are able to conceive a child until they want to stop to make sure they wont use abortion as a birth control measure ?


ps I'm off to bed but Ill read your answer and reply tomorrow


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Fighting for the right to choose is not fighting to push people to have an abortion. So stop acting like women are pushing other women having abortions. So stop pretending that is what it is. Its about CHOICE.
> You are being disengeous about what you are saying.


It's not disingenuous, part of being a Feminist as well as being accepted into more pro-choice leaning circles is to accept this. Advocating for Abortion rights as well as telling women they should have Abortions (if desired or needed) is pushing for it. Lena Dunham is pretty much a perfect example of this.

Let's say I believe in Jesus, worshiping him is a choice but to be friends with me or join a movement I may part of, well you GOTTA BELIEVE or get lost! I frequently harass Atheists and tell them if they don't believe, well they're gonna go to hell! you have a choice of course, I'm giving you that choice but you should choose to believe what I believe, because I'm right and you're wrong. That's the very definition of pushing an ideology. Just because it's an ideology you agree with doesn't make it less of a push.





birthday_massacre said:


> You have zero evidence people are pushing women into getting abortions. ZERO. You just keep showing how people are pushing for CHOICE.
> 
> IN red states conservatives keep shutting down PP and making them harder and harder to open. Are you against them that?


Abortions were uncommon 20+ years back or so, very rare in non-white communities or non-white countries. Now Abortions are pretty high and had big jumps in these countries and peoples. I'd say the advocation for Abortion has paid off. See, pushing an ideology can be effective! Maybe if we push for more people to recycle, they will! It's all a choice though.






birthday_massacre said:


> It is a left and right issue. How can you say its not when its mostly the GOP trying to make women carry pregnancies even ones who were raped.


It's more of a slap fight between Feminists and Religious Conservatives, neither who make up their entire Political Demographic or spectrum. It's a fight between having a right and what's considered morally right.








birthday_massacre said:


> I did edit my post probably while you were answering so I will write this in here in case you missed it
> 
> let me ask you
> do you think the govt should give teens/women access to free birth control from the age they are able to conceive a child until they want to stop to make sure they wont use abortion as a birth control measure ?
> 
> 
> ps I'm off to bed but Ill read your answer and reply tomorrow


Yes, absolutely, along with them teaching about the issues besides Abortion that come with sex. STIs/STDs, emotional and physical issues, spotting abuse etc. The whole nine. HPV is something a major part of the population has, we're seeing more issues that are sex related. Sex shouldn't be a secret or something kept in the dark, talking about sex shouldn't be linked to such things as pornography.

If sex weren't so mysterious to some, we'd have less Abortions, trauma and other complications that come from not talking about it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> It's not disingenuous, part of being a Feminist as well as being accepted into more pro-choice leaning circles is to accept this. Advocating for Abortion rights as well as telling women they should have Abortions (if desired or needed) is pushing for it. Lena Dunham is pretty much a perfect example of this.


No its not, that is why its called CHOICE. And again no one is pushing women into having abortions if they are pro CHOICE. You are totally being disingenuous when you claim this



Miss Sally said:


> Let's say I believe in Jesus, worshiping him is a choice but to be friends with me or join a movement I may part of, well you GOTTA BELIEVE or get lost! I frequently harass Atheists and tell them if they don't believe, well they're gonna go to hell! you have a choice of course, I'm giving you that choice but you should choose to believe what I believe, because I'm right and you're wrong. That's the very definition of pushing an ideology. Just because it's an ideology you agree with doesn't make it less of a push.


Again you are being disingenuous so what you are talking about is not even the same thing. We are just talking about being pro-choice, nothing else. You are not pushing anyone into any choice, just thinking a women should have the right to choose. You dont even make any sense with your point here. 




Miss Sally said:


> Abortions were uncommon 20+ years back or so, very rare in non-white communities or non-white countries. Now Abortions are pretty high and had big jumps in these countries and peoples. I'd say the advocation for Abortion has paid off. See, pushing an ideology can be effective! Maybe if we push for more people to recycle, they will! It's all a choice though.



LOL you have it backwards, its so hilarious. 20 years again women were more forced to keep the pregnancy because of the kind of BS guilty you are trying to show where. but as time went on, women realized its their own choice and that others can't force them to do what they dont want to. Its just so hilarious you are claiming women are being forced into abortions when its actually the other way around. You are trying to force women to keep a pregnancy they dont want, the projection you are doing here is outstanding.



Miss Sally said:


> It's more of a slap fight between Feminists and Religious Conservatives, neither who make up their entire Political Demographic or spectrum. It's a fight between having a right and what's considered morally right.


Morality is subjective. Lets stop acting like its objective And who's morality are you trying to use here? Hope its not the bibles since the bible allows abortion.




Miss Sally said:


> Yes, absolutely, along with them teaching about the issues besides Abortion that come with sex. STIs/STDs, emotional and physical issues, spotting abuse etc. The whole nine. HPV is something a major part of the population has, we're seeing more issues that are sex related. Sex shouldn't be a secret or something kept in the dark, talking about sex shouldn't be linked to such things as pornography.
> 
> If sex weren't so mysterious to some, we'd have less Abortions, trauma and other complications that come from not talking about it.


Good at least you are on board with the govt giving free BC and sex ed to teens to avoid unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> I think abortions should be for anyone who needs them. The issue with them being touted as a contraceptive is that in poor or uneducated areas and countries it's seen as the one solution.


You haven't really answered my question about this apart from again providing your opinion. Exactly is touting abortions as a form of birth control and who or how many mothers are doing this?

I get the issues in places Africa etc but we weren't talking about that.

Sorry if already posted



> *Fake videos of Nancy Pelosi, slowed down to make her look drunk, are spreading on social media*
> 
> Videos distorted to make US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appear drunk have been spreading across the internet.
> 
> The videos, slowed down to give the impression Ms Pelosi is drunk - complete with slurred speech, long pauses and frequent eye closes - show her giving a speech at a Center for American Progress event.
> 
> -------------------------------------
> 
> Later analysis indicated the video had been slowed by about 25 per cent, with the person behind it also altering Ms Pelosi's pitch to hide any evidence of distortion.
> 
> Computer science and digital forensics professor from the University of California, Berkeley Hany Farid said there was "no question" the video had been tampered with.
> 
> "It is striking that such a simple manipulation can be so effective and believable to some," he told the Washington Post.


The video is in the link.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/fake-vi...VeVbEZC-q3ZTdjcjOYpRhcM9lRLmmx0vqt2g07djbUdpY


I mean bloody hell, rag on her all you want - but this is bullshit. So many people will fall for this hook, line and sinker.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Tax payer money does not go toward abortions
> 
> the more you know


Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortion in the USA, they get over 500 million dollars in tax payers money every year, that is a majority of where they get their money from . They also, are a big donor to the Democratic party . Through a technicality , tax payers aren't technically funding the service of abortion, however they're funding virtually everything else that goes into one. 

Still though, it doesn't change the fact that you deny science when its convenient :lol A "zygote" is still a life. It is the beginning of one. You don't get to invent a line of when someone is human because you support abortion. Stop being a coward and use the most anti-science stance to show your support for abortion. If you believe it should be a womans right, then stick to that and stop trying to convince yourself that it isn't a life, when no one who actually knows anything about biology actually agrees with you.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> You haven't really answered my question about this apart from again providing your opinion. Exactly is touting abortions as a form of birth control and who or how many mothers are doing this?
> 
> I get the issues in places Africa etc but we weren't talking about that.


I deal with patients who actually use abortion as a form of contraceptive and do not use condoms. It's more common than you think. Condoms just aren't fun or people think condoms are only for preventing pregnancies so what happens is they don't use safe sex and transmit STDs/STIs. When I was in College several female students would practice this as sex was better "bare back". 

People are fairly short sighted when it comes to sex. I don't know the exact number who practice this but when I come along it a fair amount at work and heard of it while in school, I'd say quite a few do this.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Miss Sally said:


> I deal with patients who actually use abortion as a form of contraceptive and do not use condoms. It's more common than you think. Condoms just aren't fun or people think condoms are only for preventing pregnancies so what happens is they don't use safe sex and transmit STDs/STIs. When I was in College several female students would practice this as sex was better "bare back".
> 
> People are fairly short sighted when it comes to sex. I don't know the exact number who practice this but when I come along it a fair amount at work and heard of it while in school, I'd say quite a few do this.


Back in 2015, the Liberals of Ontario revamped and modernized the Sex Ed curriculum, the same one current Conservative Premier Doug Ford is trying to roll back on. With this new curriculum, there's been a steady increase in STD's every year. I'm not saying education isn't a good thing, but the new sex ed curriculum doesn't seem to be having the desired effect it was meant to have.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortion in the USA, they get over 500 million dollars in tax payers money every year, that is a majority of where they get their money from . They also, are a big donor to the Democratic party . Through a technicality , tax payers aren't technically funding the service of abortion, however they're funding virtually everything else that goes into one.
> 
> Still though, it doesn't change the fact that you deny science when its convenient :lol A "zygote" is still a life. It is the beginning of one. You don't get to invent a line of when someone is human because you support abortion. Stop being a coward and use the most anti-science stance to show your support for abortion. If you believe it should be a womans right, then stick to that and stop trying to convince yourself that it isn't a life, when no one who actually knows anything about biology actually agrees with you.


PP does not use tax payer money for abortions that is a fact.

And keep denying science lol A zygote is not a human life.

Its just a cluster of cells. How is something that does not have a brain, does not have a heart, and thus no heart beat, doesn't have a cerebral cortex, no lungs, a shrimp has more brain activity than a zygote.


You really hate supporting facts but that is your MO

You lose this debate every single time, its just funny you keep coming back for more punishment


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> I deal with patients who actually use abortion as a form of contraceptive and do not use condoms. It's more common than you think. Condoms just aren't fun or people think condoms are only for preventing pregnancies so what happens is they don't use safe sex and transmit STDs/STIs. When I was in College several female students would practice this as sex was better "bare back".
> 
> People are fairly short sighted when it comes to sex. I don't know the exact number who practice this but when I come along it a fair amount at work and heard of it while in school, I'd say quite a few do this.


With all due respect to your personal experience, anecdotes don't prove any kind of trend at all.

What your post tells me more is the sex ed programs in the US are appalling to non-existent, probably because a lot of the bible belt places don't want them.



Stinger Fan said:


> Still though, it doesn't change the fact that you deny science when its convenient :lol A "zygote" is still a life. It is the beginning of one. You don't get to invent a line of when someone is human because you support abortion. Stop being a coward and use the most anti-science stance to show your support for abortion. If you believe it should be a womans right, then stick to that and stop trying to convince yourself that it isn't a life, when no one who actually knows anything about biology actually agrees with you.


The other side of the coin is crazy pro-lifers who try to paint up these 'zygotes' as if it's 2 seconds away from a forming baby with features, that it bares any biology or any resemblance to it at all. Those people are inventing a line as well too.

I don't know where you're getting this *"no one who actually knows anything about biology actually agrees with you"* stuff either. It shows an extremely loose interpretation of the term life first of all in order to guilt people to stop something they find morally wrong.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> The other side of the coin is crazy pro-lifers who try to paint up these 'zygotes' as if it's 2 seconds away from a forming baby with features, that it bares any biology or any resemblance to it at all. Those people are inventing a line as well too.
> 
> I don't know where you're getting this *"no one who actually knows anything about biology actually agrees with you"* stuff either. It shows an extremely loose interpretation of the term life first of all in order to guilt people to stop something they find morally wrong.


Its funny how people like Stinger who claim BS like that and BS like life begins at conception ignore the fact that some fertilzed eggs dont even implant and become pregnancies. He also fails to point out how even some embryos because of complications self abort.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> PP does not use tax payer money for abortions that is a fact.
> 
> And keep denying science lol A zygote is not a human life.
> 
> Its just a cluster of cells. How is something that does not have a brain, does not have a heart, and thus no heart beat, doesn't have a cerebral cortex, no lungs, a shrimp has more brain activity than a zygote.
> 
> 
> You really hate supporting facts but that is your MO
> 
> You lose this debate every single time, its just funny you keep coming back for more punishment


And I stated, they don't use tax payers for the service of abortion itself, but they get the money for everything else involved in the abortion process. It's a loophole, what don't you understand about what a loophole is? 

If it's not human, are you suggesting the zygote inside a woman's body can turn into a pig or a cow? I mean, if it isn't human, then that statement must be true, right? It's sad I have to explain this to you but here goes. A zygote, is the *beginning of a human's life* , this isn't disputed by anyone other than people like you who think they're smarter than people who spend their entire lives dedicated to this It takes massive ego to deny basic biology because you don't agree with it. In your current form, right now, you are a still a clump of cells,you're just a much bigger clump of cells, why? Because your mother did not terminate her pregnancy. You were allowed to grow and become who you are today. If that Zygote was terminated, you wouldn't be alive. That's how this works.

Dick Cheney had no heart beat for a year and needed a special pump to keep him alive, do you believe you have the legal right to kill him because he had no heart beat? Do I need to bring up coma patients and people on life support too? 

You're the last person who should accuse people of not properly supporting facts, especially considering you blatantly lied the other day about charter schools doing 83% worse to which you ignored it completely after I provided the link and your entire rebuttal against charter schools was "i'm right because I'm right".You have a habit of doing that, you do the same with school shootings statistics too. You disregard anything you don't agree with because you don't like its findings. The fact that you're even accusing me of not supporting what I say , shows how little of an argument you actually have. Also, do you really wanna talk about running away? You ran away from the climate change discussion we had the other day after you (humorously might I add) called me a science denier, even though I never denied climate change . You ran away from the sports contracts conversation we had this week. Oh, and whenever there's a discussion about minimum wages, you rarely respond to me and if you do, you usually run away after you do.

And....are you seriously going back to the "i destroyed you" type comments :lol



yeahbaby! said:


> The other side of the coin is crazy pro-lifers who try to paint up these 'zygotes' as if it's 2 seconds away from a forming baby with features, that it bares any biology or any resemblance to it at all. Those people are inventing a line as well too.
> 
> I don't know where you're getting this *"no one who actually knows anything about biology actually agrees with you"* stuff either. It shows an extremely loose interpretation of the term life first of all in order to guilt people to stop something they find morally wrong.


No one says that zygotes are 2 seconds away from forming a baby ready to be delivered. Everyone who argues knows that it takes time for a human to develop, which obviously includes post birth because you know... what we are today wasn't what we were when we were born. But the fact is, a human life begins at fertilization, and thats the entire crux of the argument. A zygote is the very beginning of a human's life cycle, people who are far smarter than you or I on this subject have proved this to be true, so yes its an argument. Let me ask you a rhetorical question, what is your stance on climate change? How do you feel about people who say , climate change doesn't exist, does your same argument apply then? Or only when you pick and choose?Like I said, if you believe that an abortion is a right, go right ahead, but that should be your argument. Denying what an abortion is,a human life is and what biology is, is just ridiculous.


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I deal with patients who actually use abortion as a form of contraceptive and do not use condoms. It's more common than you think. Condoms just aren't fun or people think condoms are only for preventing pregnancies so what happens is they don't use safe sex and transmit STDs/STIs. When I was in College several female students would practice this as sex was better "bare back".
> 
> People are fairly short sighted when it comes to sex. I don't know the exact number who practice this but when I come along it a fair amount at work and heard of it while in school, I'd say quite a few do this.
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 2015, the Liberals of Ontario revamped and modernized the Sex Ed curriculum, the same one current Conservative Premier Doug Ford is trying to roll back on. With this new curriculum, there's been a steady increase in STD's every year. I'm not saying education isn't a good thing, but the new sex ed curriculum doesn't seem to be having the desired effect it was meant to have.
Click to expand...

The whole of Canada has seen massive rises year on year in nearly all STDs since 2004. 

Fords only voiced issue was the erroneous idea parents weren't consulted but we all know its because he's a prude who didn't want all that Liberal stuff being taught to kids. 

Anyone who tries to use the continued trend of STD rises as the reason is being incredibly deceitful. 

Lies, damn lies and statistics I guess.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> And I stated, they don't use tax payers for the service of abortion itself, but they get the money for everything else involved in the abortion process. It's a loophole, what don't you understand about what a loophole is?


If you dont use tax dollars what is the problem them?

What exactly do they pay for in the abortion process?
Give the details




Stinger Fan said:


> If it's not human, are you suggesting the zygote inside a woman's body can turn into a pig or a cow? I mean, if it isn't human, then that statement must be true, right? It's sad I have to explain this to you but here goes. A zygote, is the *beginning of a human's life* , this isn't disputed by anyone other than people like you who think they're smarter than people who spend their entire lives dedicated to this It takes massive ego to deny basic biology because you don't agree with it. In your current form, right now, you are a still a clump of cells,you're just a much bigger clump of cells, why? Because your mother did not terminate her pregnancy. You were allowed to grow and become who you are today. If that Zygote was terminated, you wouldn't be alive. That's how this works.


If there was no mother the zygote would not be viable. Using your logic an egg yolk/white is a chicken.




Stinger Fan said:


> Dick Cheney had no heart beat for a year and needed a special pump to keep him alive, do you believe you have the legal right to kill him because he had no heart beat? Do I need to bring up coma patients and people on life support too


Is someone who is brain dead a human life?

Of course not they are dead. they just have machines keeping them alive. 

They have their plug pulled all the time. 

Its just funny you would bring stuff like this up when it defeats your argument lol




Stinger Fan said:


> You're the last person who should accuse people of not properly supporting facts, especially considering you blatantly lied the other day about charter schools doing 83% worse to which you ignored it completely after I provided the link and your entire rebuttal against charter schools was "i'm right because I'm right".You have a habit of doing that, you do the same with school shootings statistics too. You disregard anything you don't agree with because you don't like its findings. The fact that you're even accusing me of not supporting what I say , shows how little of an argument you actually have. Also, do you really wanna talk about running away? You ran away from the climate change discussion we had the other day after you (humorously might I add) called me a science denier, even though I never denied climate change . You ran away from the sports contracts conversation we had this week. Oh, and whenever there's a discussion about minimum wages, you rarely respond to me and if you do, you usually run away after you do.


LOL everything I posted about charter schools was a fact, and yes I misspoke sayign they were private schools when I meant they were like private schools. I even admitted I misspoke, funny how you ignored me sigh that but again you dont deal in facts which you have proved yet again.

IF you want to ignore facts that is fine it just makes you look bad.




Stinger Fan said:


> No one says that zygotes are 2 seconds away from forming a baby ready to be delivered. Everyone who argues knows that it takes time for a human to develop, which obviously includes post birth because you know... what we are today wasn't what we were when we were born. But the fact is, a human life begins at fertilization, and thats the entire crux of the argument. A zygote is the very beginning of a human's life cycle, people who are far smarter than you or I on this subject have proved this to be true, so yes its an argument. Let me ask you a rhetorical question, what is your stance on climate change? How do you feel about people who say , climate change doesn't exist, does your same argument apply then? Or only when you pick and choose?Like I said, if you believe that an abortion is a right, go right ahead, but that should be your argument. Denying what an abortion is,a human life is and what biology is, is just ridiculous.


You keep pretending a zygote is human life when its not. Its just funny you are trying to backtrack now. I just proved to you human life does not begin at fertilization. AGAIN some fertilzed eggs dont even implant and become pregnancies. 

Its just funny you think something that does not have a brain, does not have a heart, and thus no heart beat, doesn't have a cerebral cortex, no lungs, a shrimp has more brain activity than a zygote is a human life when it can't even survive without the mother.

Its also funny how you are now trying to move the goal posts by calming its the beginning of human life lol

So are you going to agree its not a person then?


A beginning of a person is not a person, just like an egg yolk/white is not a chicken just like an acorn is not a tree.

But using your logic they would be.

Also using your wonky logic, a guy should never jerk off or pull out of a women because his sperm is the beginning of a human life so for you that is just as bad as an abortion


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> If you dont use tax dollars what is the problem them?
> 
> What exactly do they pay for in the abortion process?
> Give the details
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no mother the zygote would not be viable. Using your logic an egg yolk/white is a chicken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is someone who is brain dead a human life?
> 
> Of course not they are dead. they just have machines keeping them alive.
> 
> They have their plug pulled all the time.
> 
> Its just funny you would bring stuff like this up when it defeats your argument lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL everything I posted about charter schools was a fact, and yes I misspoke sayign they were private schools when I meant they were like private schools. I even admitted I misspoke, funny how you ignored me sigh that but again you dont deal in facts which you have proved yet again.
> 
> IF you want to ignore facts that is fine it just makes you look bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep pretending a zygote is human life when its not. Its just funny you are trying to backtrack now. I just proved to you human life does not begin at fertilization. AGAIN some fertilzed eggs dont even implant and become pregnancies.
> 
> Its just funny you think something that does not have a brain, does not have a heart, and thus no heart beat, doesn't have a cerebral cortex, no lungs, a shrimp has more brain activity than a zygote is a human life when it can't even survive without the mother.
> 
> Its also funny how you are now trying to move the goal posts by calming its the beginning of human life lol
> 
> So are you going to agree its not a person then?
> 
> 
> A beginning of a person is not a person, just like an egg yolk/white is not a chicken just like an acorn is not a tree.
> 
> But using your logic they would be.
> 
> Also using your wonky logic, a guy should never jerk off or pull out of a women because his sperm is the beginning of a human life so for you that is just as bad as an abortion


For starters, the people who perform the abortion itself are paid through tax dollars. 

All life begins at a specific point, it doesn't make it any less than a life because of its age. An elderly person isn't more of a human than a new born 

It doesn't defeat my argument by any means because people in comas can come out of them(which you ignored). You also , as per usual, ignored my question about Dick Cheney and his heartbeat. Why? Because it actually defeats your argument about machines keeping someone alive :lol

Most of what you said applied more so to private schools while only some applied to charters, I already stated this. I provided the links showing the differences between the 3 school types and you ignored them. You didn't "misspeak", :you flat out *lied* and tried to post some nonsense to further your argument. You ignored it when I called you out on it and only now are you trying to backtrack(after accusing me of doing the same, again). I provided a ton of links about charter schools that you ignored, and I provided a ton of links about liberal influence that you ignored. The only one doing the ignoring here , is you. Hell, you still ignored my bringing up sports contracts and climate change discussions :lol

I did not backtrack my stance on human life. You , of all people, did not prove that life doesn't begin where it does. You aren't special . Scientists who studied this topic have confirmed for *decades* when a human life begins,but some how, some random guy on a wrestling forum, knows better? :lol Fact is, every pregnancy starts off at the same place, its basic biology, if a life isn't viable, it doesn't make it any less than a life. Women have miscarriages too,you know, when a life is usually further developed? That doesn't make it any less than a human life 

If you're going to accuse me of thinking that masturbation is murder, at least have the courage to actually accuse me. And no, I don't believe your false equivalency argument is as bad as an abortion because 1-Sperm cells can't spontaneously turn into a baby on its own and 2-Sperm cells die constantly if a man doesn't ejaculate after a prolonged period of time


----------



## Lady Eastwood

I think it's fucking funny people think they should have a say when it comes to a legit abortion.

Funny as in you're a sack of shit with no life.

Protection doesn't always work, and, before some tit waffle comes in with THEN DON'T HAVE SEX LOLOLOLOL, sex is a part of human nature, people shouldn't have to not do it because there is a chance their protection might not work and they get pregnant, that's just a really dumbass way of thinking, and the same people who use that weak argument are the ones who can't keep their dick in their pants for 5 minutes when a hot chick appears before them.

If daddy rapes his 12 year old and she gets pregnant, she should keep it? Get fucked, every last one of you goddamn morons who thinks this shit.

This has set women way back, in a time where women were progressing forward.

There is no excuse for society to tell a women she can, or can't, have a fucking abortion, unless (imo) it's some dumb cunt who walks around with her legs spread like jam and gets pregnant purposely because she doesn't want to protect herself in any way, and just aborts 30 times a year. People should be put on lists if they show up more than once so if they show up again, they have to do some courses or something to prevent them from being a useless baby cum dumpster again.


----------



## AlphaBeta

Nancy Pelosi appears to have had a stroke recently. Here she is looking dazed and confused.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1131728912835383300
If you want to fully comprehend just how awful Pelosi looked, just read the left's reaction to it. They are absolutely freaking out, and are desperately trying to discredit it by calling it "selectively edited." Apparently editing videos down to their relevant and salient parts is some new and controversial move.


----------



## Tag89

there are some dedicated 'anti-abortion' protesters outside the main hospital here. they're a christian group obviously

they're technically (just) outside the hospital grounds, but more or less 500 yards from the maternity building

they total an impressive number...5

yes, 5 people with signs, placards etc

people reguarly wind their windows down to scream abuse at them as they drive past, or just speed up and hit the massive rain puddle that usually forms at the side of the road where they stand

my partner despies them (they're a nurse at the hospital)


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> For starters, the people who perform the abortion itself are paid through tax dollars.
> 
> All life begins at a specific point, it doesn't make it any less than a life because of its age. An elderly person isn't more of a human than a new born
> 
> It doesn't defeat my argument by any means because people in comas can come out of them(which you ignored). You also , as per usual, ignored my question about Dick Cheney and his heartbeat. Why? Because it actually defeats your argument about machines keeping someone alive :lol
> 
> Most of what you said applied more so to private schools while only some applied to charters, I already stated this. I provided the links showing the differences between the 3 school types and you ignored them. You didn't "misspeak", :you flat out *lied* and tried to post some nonsense to further your argument. You ignored it when I called you out on it and only now are you trying to backtrack(after accusing me of doing the same, again). I provided a ton of links about charter schools that you ignored, and I provided a ton of links about liberal influence that you ignored. The only one doing the ignoring here , is you. Hell, you still ignored my bringing up sports contracts and climate change discussions :lol
> 
> I did not backtrack my stance on human life. You , of all people, did not prove that life doesn't begin where it does. You aren't special . Scientists who studied this topic have confirmed for *decades* when a human life begins,but some how, some random guy on a wrestling forum, knows better? :lol Fact is, every pregnancy starts off at the same place, its basic biology, if a life isn't viable, it doesn't make it any less than a life. Women have miscarriages too,you know, when a life is usually further developed? That doesn't make it any less than a human life
> 
> If you're going to accuse me of thinking that masturbation is murder, at least have the courage to actually accuse me. And no, I don't believe your false equivalency argument is as bad as an abortion because 1-Sperm cells can't spontaneously turn into a baby on its own and 2-Sperm cells die constantly if a man doesn't ejaculate after a prolonged period of time


LOL at most of what I said applies to private schools end not charter schools, once again you showing how you can't even be honest.

True or false Charter schools have no transparency and don't have to comply with the same types of laws/rules/regulations public schools do. Also charter schools don't have a thing like a school board that is elected by the public. 

true or false hey also are not unionized so they can fuck over the teachers as badly as they want. 

true or false a lot of charter schools tend to go under at an alarming rate, a big number of them in their first year

True or false most charter schools are religious 



spoiler alert, the answer to all of those is TRUE
But keep ignoring those facts, its what you do best


If you are brain dead you cannot come out of that.

Being in a coma does not mean you have no brain activity it means its just very low

Its funny you keep talking about a full grown adult, or even a baby and act ilke tis the same thing as a zygote, its not. 

You keep brining up the silly argument about Dick Chaney if he did not have that artificial heart what would happen to him? He would be DEAD.

I love how you keep saying live begins with.... but wont talk about what the issue is and that is is a zygote a human being, and the answer is NO, its a bunch of cells, its funny you wont speak to this.

its also funny you totally ignored my egg and acorn point because again it blows your argument out of the waterl


----------



## krtgolfing

Catalanotto said:


> I think it's fucking funny people think they should have a say when it comes to a legit abortion.
> 
> Funny as in you're a sack of shit with no life.
> 
> Protection doesn't always work, and, before some tit waffle comes in with THEN DON'T HAVE SEX LOLOLOLOL, sex is a part of human nature, people shouldn't have to not do it because there is a chance their protection might not work and they get pregnant, that's just a really dumbass way of thinking, and the same people who use that weak argument are the ones who can't keep their dick in their pants for 5 minutes when a hot chick appears before them.
> 
> If daddy rapes his 12 year old and she gets pregnant, she should keep it? Get fucked, every last one of you goddamn morons who thinks this shit.
> 
> This has set women way back, in a time where women were progressing forward.
> 
> There is no excuse for society to tell a women she can, or can't, have a fucking abortion, unless (imo) it's some dumb cunt who walks around with her legs spread like jam and gets pregnant purposely because she doesn't want to protect herself in any way, and just aborts 30 times a year. People should be put on lists if they show up more than once so if they show up again, they have to do some courses or something to prevent them from being a useless baby cum dumpster again.


Pretty much this!!!

I am Republican when it comes to most things politics. However, this is one where they are very wrong. I am against using abortion as a type of birth control, however birth control is not 100% effective. I mean a 12 year old gets rapes and has to have the child just seems morally wrong. Or if during birth there is a a high probably of the mother and / or the baby not surviving? You can tell me the stats on the numbers of pregnancies / rape, however what if it was someone close to you? Would your opinions change? Also if you are raped and do not plan on keeping it you have the financial burden of having a baby which is significantly more than an abortion.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

krtgolfing said:


> Pretty much this!!!
> 
> I am Republican when it comes to most things politics. However, this is one where they are very wrong. I am against using abortion as a type of birth control, however birth control is not 100% effective. I mean a 12 year old gets rapes and has to have the child just seems morally wrong. Or if during birth there is a a high probably of the mother and / or the baby not surviving? You can tell me the stats on the numbers of pregnancies / rape, however what if it was someone close to you? Would your opinions change? Also if you are raped and do not plan on keeping it you have the financial burden of having a baby which is significantly more than an abortion.


I hate the "rape scenario" as a defense for the abortion argument, because in the grand scheme it makes zero sense.

Florida keeps track of their abortions by year... last year out of 70K plus abortions a total of 4.6% of them were due to these reasons:


The pregnancy resulted from an incestuous relationship
The woman was raped
The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
There was a serious fetal abnormality
The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy

That would still leave 95.4% of the abortions to talk about.

I don't get the idea that abortion clinics are full of rape victims who are just trying to get on with the horrible trauma of what happened to them.

Because that is the go-to in every single abortion argument


----------



## krtgolfing

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I hate the "rape scenario" as a defense for the abortion argument, because in the grand scheme it makes zero sense.
> 
> Florida keeps track of their abortions by year... last year out of 70K plus abortions a total of 4.6% of them were due to these reasons:
> 
> 
> The pregnancy resulted from an incestuous relationship
> The woman was raped
> The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
> There was a serious fetal abnormality
> The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
> The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy
> 
> That would still leave 95.4% of the abortions to talk about.
> 
> I don't get the idea that abortion clinics are full of rape victims who are just trying to get on with the horrible trauma of what happened to them.
> 
> Because that is the go-to in every single abortion argument


So no exceptions whatsoever... Got it!


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

krtgolfing said:


> So no exceptions whatsoever... Got it!


Don't be that dude.

You are much better than that...


----------



## Draykorinee

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Because that is the go-to in every single abortion argument


Not really, thats just the easy one to be morally superior on, people argue the other 95% all the time. Its called pro-choice.


----------



## virus21

AlphaBeta said:


> Nancy Pelosi appears to have had a stroke recently. Here she is looking dazed and confused.


Isn't that what she usually looks like?


----------



## Lady Eastwood

So I guess all men should either refrain from sex, or, just chop your dicks off if you don’t want women to get an abortion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> I hate the "rape scenario" as a defense for the abortion argument, because in the grand scheme it makes zero sense.
> 
> Florida keeps track of their abortions by year... last year out of 70K plus abortions a total of 4.6% of them were due to these reasons:
> 
> 
> The pregnancy resulted from an incestuous relationship
> The woman was raped
> The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
> There was a serious fetal abnormality
> The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
> The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy
> 
> That would still leave 95.4% of the abortions to talk about.
> 
> I don't get the idea that abortion clinics are full of rape victims who are just trying to get on with the horrible trauma of what happened to them.
> 
> Because that is the go-to in every single abortion argument


The whole point about asking about rape in abortion debates is to see where the pro-life people draw the line. 

You act like its their main defense for the pro choice crowd when its not. Its BS you are even trying to claim this.

The whole reason the pro-life crowd hates the rape argument is because it does one of two things.

If they say well sure in the case of rape then its ok for an abortion, that makes them a hypocrite.
if the say no even if someone is raped they should be forced to carry the pregnancy, even if you are 11 or 12 that just shows what a monster you are.

So here is the thing

If you are pro life that is great, dolt have abortions. But dont tell other women what they can and can't do with their bodies

The fact is, if it was men who were the ones who give birth, this debate wouldn't even be happening.

Its also ironic how it always seems like there are a number of politicians who are so called pro life yet have asked their mistresses to get abortions.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

that's why i don't appreciate certain people framing abortion as solely a woman's issue.

i mean yea women are the ones burdened with the workload when it comes childbirth, but whatever law pertains to abortion effects everyone. if she's stuck with the child then so is he.


----------



## krtgolfing

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Don't be that dude.
> 
> You are much better than that...


IDK about that. 

I talked with my wife about this the other night. The only way she said she would have an abortion would be for the reasons you and I both mentioned. I know we do not use any protection during sex. She cannot take any type of birth control due to her medical history. I am not putting on a rubber damn it! So if we got pregnant we would go along with it, even if we are not ready at the time. We want one eventually if that is in the cards. 

It seems that with the abortion law passing in Alabama though this has moved to a hot button topic and then some in this country. Or maybe I have not been paying a lot of attention to the subject.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look, of course they did. GOP will cheat to win at all costs

Reuters: The Supreme Court has blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts illegally diminished the power of Democratic voters.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> The whole point about asking about rape in abortion debates is to see where the pro-life people draw the line.


No, it's just as stupid as asking "should a woman use abortion as a form of birth control", it doesn't add to the argument, because it just tries to be some gotch moment that everyone everywhere has used.



> You act like its their main defense for the pro choice crowd when its not. Its BS you are even trying to claim this.


Thanks for reading my mind there homeboy, got the lottery number with those special powers?



> The whole reason the pro-life crowd hates the rape argument is because it does one of two things.
> 
> If they say well sure in the case of rape then its ok for an abortion, that makes them a hypocrite.
> if the say no even if someone is raped they should be forced to carry the pregnancy, even if you are 11 or 12 that just shows what a monster you are.


I think most people in this argument are both just fighting to win while making sure everyone loses.

Anyone who thinks that an abortion ban is a good thing is stupid, even if you believe a zygote is a child... it doesn't mean that even 5% of the time the abortion may be the ONLY way out.

And as for the pro-choice side... it's funny how their argument is "Well, the back alley abortions, think of those people who put themselves in danger" but somehow argue for gun bans.

BTW conservatives who argue for no gun bans, but argue for abortion bans need to check themselves in the mirror too.



> So here is the thing
> 
> If you are pro life that is great, dolt have abortions. But dont tell other women what they can and can't do with their bodies


Or maybe if you are pro-choice, you could come to a compromise.

I am pro-life but not 100% against abortions, maybe if people stop generalizing, things would be better in conversation



> The fact is, if it was men who were the ones who give birth, this debate wouldn't even be happening.


This can't be proven or disproven, so I don't know why it is said.



> Its also ironic how it always seems like there are a number of politicians who are so called pro life yet have asked their mistresses to get abortions.


What does this have to do with anything. Someone is supposed to have an opinion based on what someone else does with their life.

You surprise me sometimes, because I know you can have a better conversation than this about this subject, but you keep saying asinine stuff... the worst part is that there are legitimate solutions out there that you would think you could use in your argument, and you go to things like this.



krtgolfing said:


> IDK about that.
> 
> I talked with my wife about this the other night. The only way she said she would have an abortion would be for the reasons you and I both mentioned. I know we do not use any protection during sex. She cannot take any type of birth control due to her medical history. I am not putting on a rubber damn it! So if we got pregnant we would go along with it, even if we are not ready at the time. We want one eventually if that is in the cards.
> 
> It seems that with the abortion law passing in Alabama though this has moved to a hot button topic and then some in this country. Or maybe I have not been paying a lot of attention to the subject.


LOL.... but that is the thing... I wasn't saying there are no exceptions ever...

I am saying the rape scenario is tired, because it doesn't push anything forward.

All it becomes is "See, you don't care about rape victims" I also hate "Well, there should never be any reason ever"

I agree with Gavin McInness on abortion, I don't want a ban, or need one, but give me a time frame that works.

6 weeks, 8 weeks, heartbeat... something... A definitive time frame... the religious crazies are still going to be out in full force, and the jerks who want to terminate 8 month old children will still exist, but I truly believe that the majority of Americans will be fine.

These extreme sides just make people think they have to pick a team... if a 12 year old girl wants to abort her rape baby, that is fine.... But that doesn't mean Sandy spread her legs should be chilling in the clinic for the 5th time in 8 months.

I hope we can agree there.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> No, it's just as stupid as asking "should a woman use abortion as a form of birth control", it doesn't add to the argument, because it just tries to be some gotch moment that everyone everywhere has used.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for reading my mind there homeboy, got the lottery number with those special powers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people in this argument are both just fighting to win while making sure everyone loses.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that an abortion ban is a good thing is stupid, even if you believe a zygote is a child... it doesn't mean that even 5% of the time the abortion may be the ONLY way out.
> 
> And as for the pro-choice side... it's funny how their argument is "Well, the back alley abortions, think of those people who put themselves in danger" but somehow argue for gun bans.
> 
> BTW conservatives who argue for no gun bans, but argue for abortion bans need to check themselves in the mirror too.
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe if you are pro-choice, you could come to a compromise.
> 
> I am pro-life but not 100% against abortions, maybe if people stop generalizing, things would be better in conversation
> 
> 
> 
> This can't be proven or disproven, so I don't know why it is said.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with anything. Someone is supposed to have an opinion based on what someone else does with their life.
> 
> You surprise me sometimes, because I know you can have a better conversation than this about this subject, but you keep saying asinine stuff... the worst part is that there are legitimate solutions out there that you would think you could use in your argument, and you go to things like this.




Why is asking about raped women stupid when it comes to banning abortion?

it totally adds to the argument. 

You just made the claim the go to argument for pro choice is rape, to go means main defense. So you admit you will fill of shit with that claim them? Which is it?

The only person that loses in the pro life / pro choice debate are women whose choice is trying to be taken away. Is it not?

Pro choice people need to compromise LOL how exactly do you compromise being pro choice? There is nothing to compromise on. You are saying you think its up to the women to decide what she wants 
You dont even make any sense. It just show show weak your case is here

OH please we all know if men were the ones who had to give birth all these conservative men would be saying OH make abortion illegal., its because they are hypocrites.
We have seen it time and time again when it comes to abortion and even being gay

It has every thing to do with it. If you are claiming you are pro life then you have a mistress you ask to have an abortion, you dont see an issue with that?

You can't be serious

You are the one saying asinine stuff on this subject not me lol

You do know what may stance is on abortion right? I have said it many times when these debates come out. I will say int again.

its the womens right to choice. And abortions should be legal up until the can survive outside the mother on its on. So once its viable without the mother, then abortons should not happen.

So tell me you dont think that is a good stance to have



DMD Mofomagic said:


> LOL.... but that is the thing... I wasn't saying there are no exceptions ever...
> 
> I am saying the rape scenario is tired, because it doesn't push anything forward.
> 
> All it becomes is "See, you don't care about rape victims" I also hate "Well, there should never be any reason ever"
> 
> I agree with Gavin McInness on abortion, I don't want a ban, or need one, but give me a time frame that works.
> 
> 6 weeks, 8 weeks, heartbeat... something... A definitive time frame... the religious crazies are still going to be out in full force, and the jerks who want to terminate 8 month old children will still exist, but I truly believe that the majority of Americans will be fine.
> 
> These extreme sides just make people think they have to pick a team... if a 12 year old girl wants to abort her rape baby, that is fine.... But that doesn't mean Sandy spread her legs should be chilling in the clinic for the 5th time in 8 months.
> 
> I hope we can agree there.


The rape scenario is not tired, because it does push things forward especially now since a coupe of states are saying aborton is illegal even for women who have been raped. So it here is anytime to talk about rape and abortion now is the time.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

birthday_massacre said:


> Why is asking about raped women stupid when it comes to banning abortion?
> 
> it totally adds to the argument.


What does it add? That SOME abortions are totally valid? Do you believe that women using abortion as a contraceptive adds to the other side's argument, because I don't.



> You just made the claim the go to argument for pro choice is rape, to go means main defense. So you admit you will fill of shit with that claim them? Which is it?


Then what is the go to argument?



> The only person that loses in the pro life / pro choice debate are women whose choice is trying to be taken away. Is it not?


If you want to say it man... have at it... i disagree, but don't really care enough to go into it.



> Pro choice people need to compromise LOL how exactly do you compromise being pro choice? There is nothing to compromise on. You are saying you think its up to the women to decide what she wants
> You dont even make any sense. It just show show weak your case is here


do you think abortion after 32 weeks is acceptable?



> OH please we all know if men were the ones who had to give birth all these conservative men would be saying OH make abortion illegal., its because they are hypocrites.
> We have seen it time and time again when it comes to abortion and even being gay


Ok... I guess. I



> It has every thing to do with it. If you are claiming you are pro life then you have a mistress you ask to have an abortion, you dont see an issue with that?
> 
> You can't be serious


I don't have a mistress, nor have I asked a girl to have an abortion.. and considering you are addressing me, then no I don't see the issue



> You are the one saying asinine stuff on this subject not me lol
> 
> You do know what may stance is on abortion right? I have said it many times when these debates come out. I will say int again.
> 
> its the womens right to choice. And abortions should be legal up until the can survive outside the mother on its on. So once its viable without the mother, then abortons should not happen.
> 
> So tell me you dont think that is a good stance to have


Honestly, i think it is a non commital way of making yourself ride the fence to in no way shape or form make yourself responsible, and allows you to make any argument, without sounding wrong.

Strike force gave a number... 20 weeks.... that is a response.

But let's take his number, and ask you about it...

20 weeks out of the womb gives the baby 10-20% chance of survival... should that baby be aborted? It has a chance to live, and may even grow up to be a viable human being, but none of us know.

The problem with your premise is it doesn't answer the question, it just raises more.

So, if that is your stance, so be it, but don't pound your chest like you actually said something, when in reality you just worked a way to give yourself an out.



birthday_massacre said:


> The rape scenario is not tired, because it does push things forward especially now since a coupe of states are saying aborton is illegal even for women who have been raped. So it here is anytime to talk about rape and abortion now is the time.


Yes it is tired, and you don't even know why, because you can't even make your own arguments good...

Here is some help, in things I agree with, that you should be talking about:

Colorado (a blue state) had an IUD program that saw a tremendous drop in abortions and teen pregnancy over a 10 year period:

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/

Alabam (yes that Alabama) passed a law where same sex couples could be denied for abortions:

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...ts-adoption-groups-turn-away-same-sex-n754691

Both of those things are much better arguments against abortion then "Hey man, this 12 year old girl got raped for years by her father, and now you are sentencing her to life in prison over not wanting to keep the baby"

It's disingenuous, and doesn't do or prove anything.... but keep on with that argument, because I guess it works... on someone, somewhere.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

DMD Mofomagic said:


> LOL.... but that is the thing... I wasn't saying there are no exceptions ever...
> 
> I am saying the rape scenario is tired, because it doesn't push anything forward.
> 
> All it becomes is "See, you don't care about rape victims" I also hate "Well, there should never be any reason ever"
> 
> I agree with Gavin McInness on abortion, I don't want a ban, or need one, but give me a time frame that works.
> 
> 6 weeks, 8 weeks, heartbeat... something... A definitive time frame... the religious crazies are still going to be out in full force, and the jerks who want to terminate 8 month old children will still exist, but I truly believe that the majority of Americans will be fine.
> 
> These extreme sides just make people think they have to pick a team... if a 12 year old girl wants to abort her rape baby, that is fine....* But that doesn't mean Sandy spread her legs should be chilling in the clinic for the 5th time in 8 months.*
> 
> I hope we can agree there.


if that's her choice, why not? so long as it's not on the public dime, i say go for it. i think it's disgusting but hey... it's their life.

i definitely think there should be some kind of agreement on timeframe though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

DMD Mofomagic said:


> What does it add? That SOME abortions are totally valid? Do you believe that women using abortion as a contraceptive adds to the other side's argument, because I don't.


What does a women being raped have to do with women using abortion as a contraceptive? 

I already explained to you what it adds, why do you ignore what I just said. 





DMD Mofomagic said:


> Then what is the go to argument?
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to say it man... have at it... i disagree, but don't really care enough to go into it.


I already told you what the go to argument is FFS dude learn to read. I just said it.




DMD Mofomagic said:


> do you think abortion after 32 weeks is acceptable?


Again I already answered this question FFS dude why do you keep going in circles. 

I already said abortion should be legal only up until the fetus is viable outside of the mother, anything after that, abortion should only be allowed if its for the safety of the mother or if the fetus is going to die anyways because of some complication, like half a brain, half a heart, something like that.


Why do you keep asking questions I have answered over and over again or even just said in the last couple of posts




DMD Mofomagic said:


> I don't have a mistress, nor have I asked a girl to have an abortion.. and considering you are addressing me, then no I don't see the issue


LOL way to dodge the question. You know I was talking about constatives and not use personally. You dont even want to have an honest debate on this because you are pulling this kind of shit, and also claiming I have not given my views when I have over and over again



DMD Mofomagic said:


> Honestly, i think it is a non commital way of making yourself ride the fence to in no way shape or form make yourself responsible, and allows you to make any argument, without sounding wrong.
> 
> Strike force gave a number... 20 weeks.... that is a response.
> 
> But let's take his number, and ask you about it...
> 
> 20 weeks out of the womb gives the baby 10-20% chance of survival... should that baby be aborted? It has a chance to live, and may even grow up to be a viable human being, but none of us know.
> 
> The problem with your premise is it doesn't answer the question, it just raises more.
> 
> So, if that is your stance, so be it, but don't pound your chest like you actually said something, when in reality you just worked a way to give yourself an out.


AT his point you are just trolling. I gave you an answer, how is saying abortion should be legal up until the fetus is viable outside the womb non commital? 

Its just funny you keep lying sayign I dont give an answer yet you give my answer in your reply LOL

Stop trolling dude and have an honest debate

Its also funny you are trying to spit hairs over something like 20 weeks or when most people consider viability which is abou4 24 weeks when the ban is after 8 weeks the most women dont even know they are pregnant yet.

I could easily say sure lets say it at 20 weeks that is still not what we are even talking about.

We are talking about as early as 8-10 weeks which isnt even close to 20




DMD Mofomagic said:


> Yes it is tired, and you don't even know why, because you can't even make your own arguments good...
> 
> Here is some help, in things I agree with, that you should be talking about:
> 
> Colorado (a blue state) had an IUD program that saw a tremendous drop in abortions and teen pregnancy over a 10 year period:
> 
> https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/
> 
> Alabam (yes that Alabama) passed a law where same sex couples could be denied for abortions:
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...ts-adoption-groups-turn-away-same-sex-n754691
> 
> Both of those things are much better arguments against abortion then "Hey man, this 12 year old girl got raped for years by her father, and now you are sentencing her to life in prison over not wanting to keep the baby"
> 
> It's disingenuous, and doesn't do or prove anything.... but keep on with that argument, because I guess it works... on someone, somewhere.


LOL at claiming I can't even make my argument good? What exactly isn't good about it.

You can't even be honest about what my argument is, instead you strawman it


As for the stats you just gave those have nothing to do with what we are talking about when it comes to abortion

Once again you are trying to deflect the issue.

The issue is not to prevent abortons that we are talking about, we are talking about should a women have the right to choose. Something you keep ignoring'

And again the whole reason the rape thing came up which you keep ignoring is because these new anti abortion laws force women who have been raped to carry the pregnancy.

The only one being disingenuous, here is you. Especially for making up stupid shit like this "6 weeks, 8 weeks, heartbeat... something... A definitive time frame... the religious crazies are still going to be out in full force, and the jerks who want to terminate 8 month old children will still exist, but I truly believe that the majority of Americans will be fine."

When the example of the 11 year old getting raped just happened. 

But you know you can't stick to the real topic because you have no case

And also I already said the govt should give free sex ed and BC to women, its just funny you act like I never even said that.

Stop projecting it just shows how badly you are doing


----------



## rbhayek

Politics in California Report for the Week of May 20-24
Gavin Newsom's inauguraton cost $5 million, paid by union members (which will come into play later when they screw over the people for one of their pet projects)

This was the most spent for a CA governor since Gray Davis (who was infamously recalled for being ass as an governor)

California also is finally starting to acknowledge that homelessness is NOT CAUSED by high cost of living (like they have been rattling on) but a survey conducted in Los Angeles revealed that 34% of the homeless living on the streets in LA are from out of town and likely out of state. 

California also have recently enforced a straw ban (because apparently straws kill every living animal)

OH and then there is that former Soviet guy that is leading the committee that wants to tax drivers for every mile they drive in LA. 

At least funding for the terrible bullet train died. 

This has been your California update. Stay tuned for more...


----------



## virus21

rbhayek said:


> Politics in California Report for the Week of May 20-24
> Gavin Newsom's inauguraton cost $5 million, paid by union members (which will come into play later when they screw over the people for one of their pet projects)
> 
> This was the most spent for a CA governor since Gray Davis (who was infamously recalled for being ass as an governor)
> 
> California also is finally starting to acknowledge that homelessness is NOT CAUSED by high cost of living (like they have been rattling on) but a survey conducted in Los Angeles revealed that 34% of the homeless living on the streets in LA are from out of town and likely out of state.
> 
> California also have recently enforced a straw ban (because apparently straws kill every living animal)
> 
> OH and then there is that former Soviet guy that is leading the committee that wants to tax drivers for every mile they drive in LA.
> 
> At least funding for the terrible bullet train died.
> 
> This has been your California update. Stay tuned for more...


So Cali is still shit.


----------



## rbhayek

virus21 said:


> So Cali is still shit.


and smells like it on bad days too :laugh:


----------



## AlphaBeta

Catalanotto said:


> So I guess all men should either refrain from sex, or, just chop your dicks off if you don’t want women to get an abortion.


Her body. Her responsibility.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlphaBeta said:


> Her body. Her responsibility.


You are right, her body, her responsibility, thus her choice what she wants to do with her body. If she wants an abortion that is her choice.


----------



## Jericho-79

Hey ya'll! I just stumbled across these two articles about the 2020 election:

https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/ohio-may-be-losing-its-bellwether-status

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...d-democrats-have-hope-so-does-gop/2053961002/

Both Ohio and Florida were pro-Obama in 2008 and 2012. Now these two states are seemingly becoming cozy with Trump.

Why exactly are Ohio and Florida seamlessly trending Republican?

I need explanations.:beckywhat


----------



## AlphaBeta

birthday_massacre said:


> You are right, her body, her responsibility, thus her choice what she wants to do with her body. If she wants an abortion that is her choice.


Sorry, beta boy, but civilized society is done with lazy skanks using abortion as birth control.

I know that upsets you. I know it makes you feel like a man to see the unborn slaughtered by the millions. But it's going the way of slavery.

Don't worry, though. There's always socialism to help you fill your depraved psychological need to witness genocide.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlphaBeta said:


> Sorry, beta boy, but civilized society is done with lazy skanks using abortion as birth control.
> 
> I know that upsets you. I know it makes you feel like a man to see the unborn slaughtered by the millions. But it's going the way of slavery.
> 
> Don't worry, though. There's always socialism to help you fill your depraved psychological need to witness genocide.


So you admit you are a hypocrite then? Good.


----------



## AlphaBeta

birthday_massacre said:


> So you admit you are a hypocrite then? Good.


Civilized society is done with lazy skanks using abortion as birth control. The age of abortion on demand is coming to an end.

You have a wonderful day.


----------



## birthday_massacre

AlphaBeta said:


> Civilized society is done with lazy skanks using abortion as birth control. The age of abortion on demand is coming to an end.
> 
> You have a wonderful day.


No its not lol


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1132709807083970560
:aryep


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1132709807083970560
> :aryep


I can't imagine why????????


----------



## CamillePunk

virus21 said:


> I can't imagine why????????


High gas prices, duh. 

:heston


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> High gas prices, duh.
> 
> :heston


WRONG.

The answer is:






I'm wondering why Putin hasn't declared the new USSR and started a new Sino-Soviet split since you know he rules the United States and Britain and France and Italy (according to mongs) in addition to Russia and all that stands between him and total global rule is the ChiComs :cudi


----------



## MrMister

What if Putin really did rule Western society though :heston


he got some Russian teens to shitpost and now he rules the world :heston

:maury even


----------



## Draykorinee

Do they become biggest party in France or just the most meps? I'm not very clued up on French politics but if its like the UK these guys have zero say in UK politics.

Edit : yeah just MEPs, this is the usual bollocks you find on twitter. 

EU elections are entirely different and are often, like in the UK, voted on entirely different lines than the normal general elections. 

Nigel Farage for example failed every time to get elected by seemed to always get in as an MEP. 

They're not the biggest party in France at all, clickbait.

Oh and the Brexit party will walk it here too, like I always said.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1132755579473145857


----------



## deepelemblues

Nigel Farage will be PM of the UK sometime in the next 5 years

The tears will be exquisite

Unless Boris Johnson can save the Tories 

Farage will destroy the Conservative Party and split Labour along the same Leave-Remain lines if the current bunch of yobs retain their influence

The Parliamentary-judicial-media elite that has done all it can to frustrate the expressed will of the people is whipping up forces it does not comprehend - because of its hubris - and cannot control - because of its incompetence. 2016 was just the beginning if these dimwits don't wise up


----------



## roblewis87

deepelemblues said:


> Nigel Farage will be PM of the UK sometime in the next 5 years
> 
> The tears will be exquisite
> 
> Unless Boris Johnson can save the Tories
> 
> Farage will destroy the Conservative Party and split Labour along the same Leave-Remain lines if the current bunch of yobs retain their influence
> 
> The Parliamentary-judicial-media elite that has done all it can to frustrate the expressed will of the people is whipping up forces it does not comprehend - because of its hubris - and cannot control - because of its incompetence. 2016 was just the beginning if these dimwits don't wise up


I wouldn't get carried away, Euro elections are so different to General Elections. 

UKIP won the last EU elections before the referendum was confirmed and all their 27% of the vote did was translate to a Conservative Majority and 1 single MP and Farage blocked out of the commons. 

What it might mean this time, yes Brexit may actually get a handful of MP's and essentially resign the country to a hung parliament led by Con/DUP/Brexit or Labour/Lib Dem/SNP/PC/Green. 

What the locals and EU elections are showing is that with a strong opposition the Conservatives would lose to Labour in a General Election, but with Corbyn and Labour they aren't building support, they are losing support if anything despite the open goal. 

The Cons and Labour are losing to Lib Dem (Remain) Brexit (No Deal) and Greens (Environment First) 

Trying to satisfy both Remain and Leave is costing you voters as people are sick of Brexit now. 

The division in the UK is far from over as the pendulum moves back towards a harder brexit with a new pro brexit Conservative Prime Minister probably Boris or Raab at this time.

The voter turnout is around 37% based purely on Brexit, A General Election usually pulls it 65-80% of the Country. The referendum despite well voted was only around 66/67% of the electorate and EU nationals were blocked on the referendum which would have swung the result to Remain most likely by a narrow margin.

The biggest problem on the face of it is the UK is pretty much 50/50 on Leave/Remain. Most people are sick of it. England wants to Leave but Wales/Scotland and NI leaned towards Remain, it's split the country in half and Cameron is largely responsible for this. He used the referendum to get a Conservative Majority at the expense of making the country completely split and in conflict over our future relationship with the EU. it was very short sighted and he left as soon as it didn't go his way denying his responsibility for what actions he signed off on. May ironically blew that Majority less than two years later so what a waste of time.

What a surprise in the UK:

Leave Parties: 35% Remain Parties 35% and the rest 30%.

Brexit are top because Farage is the face of Remain and the vote is heavily swayed towards the Brexit Party over a more right-wing UKIP stance on Brexit without Farage. 

Nothing has changed in three years. Split as ever.


----------



## deepelemblues

roblewis87 said:


> I wouldn't get carried away, Euro elections are so different to General Elections.


Not basing it on this election

Whichever organization promises Brexit will get the most motivated voters in the country. Right now that's Farage 



> UKIP won the last EU elections before the referendum was confirmed and all their 27% of the vote did was translate to a Conservative Majority and 1 single MP and Farage blocked out of the commons.


Because Tory voters stuck with the Tories. May betrayed them. Boris (or whoever wins the party leadership contest) must deliver or Tory voters will go to Farage 



> What it might mean this time, yes Brexit may actually get a handful of MP's and essentially resign the country to a hung parliament led by Con/DUP/Brexit or Labour/Lib Dem/SNP/PC/Green.


What it might mean in the next general election won't matter, it is the election after that that will shatter the foundation of UK politics if Brexit is not delivered by Boris or whoever wins the party leadership contest



> What the locals and EU elections are showing is that with a strong opposition the Conservatives would lose to Labour in a General Election, but with Corbyn and Labour they aren't building support, they are losing support if anything despite the open goal.


Because the Remainers in the Conservative Party have betrayed their voters enough times that they're on the verge of being done with the party



> The Cons and Labour are losing to Lib Dem (Remain) Brexit (No Deal) and Greens (Environment First)
> 
> Trying to satisfy both Remain and Leave is costing you voters as people are sick of Brexit now.


People are sick of promises not being kept. The clear political advantage will go to whichever organization delivers for the most motivated voting bloc, which is Brexit voters



> The division in the UK is far from over as the pendulum moves back towards a harder brexit with a new pro brexit Conservative Prime Minister probably Boris or Raab at this time.


The pendulum is clearly on the side of the right wing and has been for some time. If May wasn't a Remainer who mouthed platitudes about respecting the will of the voters and particularly her party's base, the stranglehold the Conservative Party would have on the country would be astonishingly strong 



> The voter turnout is around 37% based purely on Brexit, A General Election usually pulls it 65-80% of the Country. The referendum despite well voted was only around 66/67% of the electorate and EU nationals were blocked on the referendum which would have swung the result to Remain most likely by a narrow margin.


EU nationals most certainly should not have voted unless they also hold British citizenship, so their being blocked was right and proper



> The biggest problem on the face of it is the UK is pretty much 50/50 on Leave/Remain. Most people are sick of it. England wants to Leave but Wales/Scotland and NI leaned towards Remain, it's split the country in half and Cameron is largely responsible for this. He used the referendum to get a Conservative Majority at the expense of making the country completely split and in conflict over our future relationship with the EU. it was very short sighted and he left as soon as it didn't go his way denying his responsibility for what actions he signed off on. May ironically blew that Majority less than two years later so what a waste of time.


Wales is fairly pro-Leave from every poll and article I've seen. Scotland and NI are remain and so is London. The rest of the country except some urban pockets is Leave

What is responsible for it is decades of policies that catered to the views and wants of a small segment of the population which regarded, and still regards, the population with contempt and disdain save when it votes the way they like. David Cameron did the UK a great service by bringing the divide between the masses and those with their hands wrapped around the levers of power in London out into the open more than any time since the 1830s

Leave has won every contest where an actual vote of the people determined the winner, instead of the shamefully anti-democratic decisions of judges or votes of MPs wherein Parliament has arrogated or had judges arrogate for it the power to disregard the results of a free and fair democratic election

If this situation continues, the motivation to tear it all down will continue to grow and that motivation is what causes votes for Farage


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.sunherald.com/news/local/crime/article230607604.html



> *Mississippi lawmaker was drunk when he ‘punched’ his wife in the face over sex, report says*
> 
> State Rep. Douglas McLeod was arrested after he allegedly punched his wife when she failed to get undressed quickly enough when he wanted to have sex, according to an investigative report filed with the George County Sheriff’s Department.
> 
> The 58-year-old Republican lawmaker was intoxicated and holding a glass of alcohol in his hand when deputies responded to the McLeod home shortly before 9 p.m. Saturday, the report said.
> 
> Over the course of the investigation, deputies wrote in the report that the state lawmaker had punched his wife in the face, bloodying her nose. Deputies found blood on the couple’s bed and on the floor in the same room.
> 
> When a deputies arrived, the report said, McLeod opened the door and they told him that they were there because a domestic assault had been reported. “Are you kidding me?” the lawmaker asked.
> 
> Then, the state representative walked inside his home, and another deputy came to the scene. The deputies could hear McLeod inside the home, yelling that “the cops are here,” the report said.
> 
> McLeod stumbled back to the front door and walked outside.
> 
> “Mr. McLeod had slurred speech and walked slow in a zigzag pattern,” according to a description by deputies, who said he was so inebriated he had to grab a hand rail to maintain his balance.
> 
> McLeod tried to explain to deputies that everything was OK, then said something else the deputies said they couldn’t understand because of his slurred speech.
> 
> When deputies went inside, they saw two women standing at the top of a stairwell, both of whom the deputies described as frightened. McLeod’s wife eventually came outside after deputies assured her they would keep her away from her husband.
> 
> The deputy said McLeod’s wife was shaking and upset.
> 
> McLeod’s wife said her husband was drunk and “just snapped,” as he often does when under the influence of alcohol, the report said.
> 
> Another woman who was there said McLeod’s wife came running up to her room, her face bloodied. The woman shut the door and locked it with McLeod’s wife inside.
> 
> The other woman said McLeod started banging on the door and telling the women to open it. He told the other woman if she didn’t open the door, he’d “kill her (expletive) dog.”
> 
> McLeod’s wife did not want go to the hospital by ambulance, but assured authorities she’d have her daughter take her to get checked so authorities would have a report of the injuries.
> 
> McLeod was taken into custody on a charge of misdemeanor domestic violence and booked in the George County jail by early Sunday morning. He is out of jail on a $1,000 signature bond.
> 
> He did not respond to questions for comment.
> 
> Sheriff Keith Havard said the investigation is continuing.
> 
> McLeod, of Lucedale, has been a state representative since 2012. His district includes residents in George, Jackson, Stone and Forrest counties. He is married with three children.
> 
> By Tuesday morning, state Sen. David Blount had called on McLeod to resign.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1130860141602115585And by Tuesday afternoon, House speaker Philip Gunn had also made a statement: “I have attempted to contact Rep. McLeod to request his resignation, if in fact, these allegations are true. These actions are unacceptable for anyone.”


Joint statement from his wife and him.

Nowhere in it does she or he say the following, "He never hit me" or "I never hit her". 



> *Mrs. Michele McLeod, NP:*
> 
> I would like to briefly address some of the recent events and the media coverage of them. First, Doug, and I, would like to express our deep gratitude to our friends and family who have been so supportive throughout this matter. We would also like to thank the community in general for their understanding and their support in this matter. We realize how very fortunate we are to have such family, friends and neighbors in this wonderful community and elsewhere. We are grateful for your thoughts and prayers while we continue serving the community and our local area residents.
> 
> As many of you are aware, I have devoted my life to the medical field in an effort to help others while Doug has been active in the community, has operated a local small business for many years and has now continued his service in the public sector by representing the great citizens of our area in the Legislature. We have been married for 35 years, and our love and appreciation for each other have seen us through the good and bad times.
> 
> Though we understand the media’s desire to immediately engage in speculative reporting in any matter such as this, the taking of things out of context has been surprising. We are not the people who have recently been displayed in certain stories. While Doug nor I claim to be perfect, the twisting of information has misrepresented me and the truth.
> 
> We intend to let the process work as designed, and we refuse to feed into the frenzy that has been initiated by the misleading reporting being done. We would ask that you reserve judgment and request that the you respect our family and our family’s privacy.
> 
> *Representative Doug McLeod:*
> 
> I would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to the friends, family and neighbors who have reached out in support and have offered their thoughts and prayers in this matter. While I would like to respond to some of the many fabrications and misrepresentations being reported and published by select media outlets and on social media, I will reserve addressing these until after the process is complete. Our family appreciates your continued thoughts and prayers and ask that our privacy be respected until such time as the facts are known.


----------



## Draykorinee

Farage, the man who failed to get elected in any general election will become prime minister.

What an interesting take...lol.


----------



## AlphaBeta

I sure wish things in politics would move at a faster pace.

Look, we know Trump's campaign was spied on. We know Obama, Hillary, and whole hoard of sweaty, slimy government characters were involved. We know the dishonest, agenda-driven MSM acted as propagators. We have the smoking-gun proof. Let's go ahead and get some arrests. I'm tired of every move taking 3-4 months, bare minimum.


----------



## DOPA

As someone who voted for them in the European Elections, *The Brexit Party* from my viewpoint is a warning shot to the Conservative government and party at large: Deliver Brexit or we will fight you in a general election. 

They know it, and it's not a stretch to say that the Conservative Party in particular are absolutely terrified at the sudden surge of the Brexit Party. The biggest difference between 2015 when UKIP won and the Brexit Party's win in 2018 is the collapse of the Tory party in these elections as Conservative leavers defect on mass to the Brexit Party.

For now, it seems with the exception of Jeremy Hunt, those running for the Tory leadership got the message loud and clear and are starting to move towards a more hardline Brexit position. My hope is that the rise of the Brexit Party will put enough pressure on the Tories to actually get their act together and get Brexit done. Should that happen, the Brexit Party's mission would be finished and the party would have no reason to exist. In that situation, I would be very happy that I got behind them for these European Elections which should have never taken place to begin with.

But should Brexit not be delivered by the time a new general election comes around, I will be 100% voting and supporting the Brexit Party at this moment in time because like many leavers, right now I do not trust the Conservative party and am hoping on outside pressure for them to get their act together on this issue.

The biggest takeaway I got leading up to the results was the amount of energy and excitement surrounding the Brexit party particularly at the rallies, Farage certainly picked up a thing or two being in the states. It reminded me of the energy around Trump's base during the 2016 election season when he won. Not only are the Brexit Party the largest party in these elections, almost double the amount than the next biggest in the Lib Dems but also the largest in the entire EU. Not to mention over 100,000 registered supporters and unique donors, most of whom at £25 a pop. All within 6 weeks of existence.

This sort of movement has not happened in my lifetime in such a short space of time and although I have been frustrated by the Brexit process, I can't lie and say that this hasn't gotten me just a little bit excited and enthusiastic. Something that has been missing for me in British politics for well over a year.

The Brexit Party are clearly a lot more organized, better funded and better prepared than UKIP ever was. The Tories better hope they hear the message loud and clear because otherwise they will have a monster to deal with, they certainly won't be in government by that point.


----------



## DesolationRow

Late-stage American democracy is hilarious to behold. Every day more evidence pours in for the case that numerous intelligence agency officials utilized all of the power at their disposal to spy on and prevent the final general-election electoral success of a major presidential campaign which secured the nomination of the Republican Party... And, effectively, no one cares. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Deadhead said:


> As someone who voted for them in the European Elections, *The Brexit Party* from my viewpoint is a warning shot to the Conservative government and party at large: Deliver Brexit or we will fight you in a general election.
> 
> They know it, and it's not a stretch to say that the Conservative Party in particular are absolutely terrified at the sudden surge of the Brexit Party. The biggest difference between 2015 when UKIP won and the Brexit Party's win in 2018 is the collapse of the Tory party in these elections as Conservative leavers defect on mass to the Brexit Party.
> 
> For now, it seems with the exception of Jeremy Hunt, those running for the Tory leadership got the message loud and clear and are starting to move towards a more hardline Brexit position. My hope is that the rise of the Brexit Party will put enough pressure on the Tories to actually get their act together and get Brexit done. Should that happen, the Brexit Party's mission would be finished and the party would have no reason to exist. In that situation, I would be very happy that I got behind them for these European Elections which should have never taken place to begin with.
> 
> But should Brexit not be delivered by the time a new general election comes around, I will be 100% voting and supporting the Brexit Party at this moment in time because like many leavers, right now I do not trust the Conservative party and am hoping on outside pressure for them to get their act together on this issue.
> 
> The biggest takeaway I got leading up to the results was the amount of energy and excitement surrounding the Brexit party particularly at the rallies, Farage certainly picked up a thing or two being in the states. It reminded me of the energy around Trump's base during the 2016 election season when he won. Not only are the Brexit Party the largest party in these elections, almost double the amount than the next biggest in the Lib Dems but also the largest in the entire EU. Not to mention over 100,000 registered supporters and unique donors, most of whom at £25 a pop. All within 6 weeks of existence.
> 
> This sort of movement has not happened in my lifetime in such a short space of time and although I have been frustrated by the Brexit process, I can't lie and say that this hasn't gotten me just a little bit excited and enthusiastic. Something that has been missing for me in British politics for well over a year.
> 
> The Brexit Party are clearly a lot more organized, better funded and better prepared than UKIP ever was. The Tories better hope they hear the message loud and clear because otherwise they will have a monster to deal with, they certainly won't be in government by that point.


I think the fact the council elections and the EU elections showed big gains for the main pro remain parties are just as good an indicator that no matter what happens there's going to be a very bloody noise for the top two parties and that the country is massively split. 

The utter trouncing that pro remain parties gave the top two at a local level was glorious, and I love seeing the Brexit party shatter the tory voter base.

Brexit party will be a flash in the pan like UKIP as soon as Brexit is finally delivered, but the damage done to the tories (and Labour to a lesser degree) will hopefully last a long time.

Seeing the racist little bellend Tommy grey last place and lose his fee was glorious. The political scene right now is a disgrace and I get no excitement out of any of it except that.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> Late-stage American democracy is hilarious to behold. Every day more evidence pours in for the case that numerous intelligence agency officials utilized all of the power at their disposal to spy on and prevent the final general-election electoral success of a major presidential campaign which secured the nomination of the Republican Party... And, effectively, no one cares. :lol


Because it happened under the Administration of someone that's liked by the MSM. So instead they babble about random conspiracies such as Russiagate.

The due diligence of some of our forum "watchdogs" seems to be lacking when it comes to certain truths.


----------



## jroc72191

birthday_massacre said:


> The whole point about asking about rape in abortion debates is to see where the pro-life people draw the line.
> 
> You act like its their main defense for the pro choice crowd when its not. Its BS you are even trying to claim this.
> 
> The whole reason the pro-life crowd hates the rape argument is because it does one of two things.
> 
> If they say well sure in the case of rape then its ok for an abortion, that makes them a hypocrite.
> if the say no even if someone is raped they should be forced to carry the pregnancy, even if you are 11 or 12 that just shows what a monster you are.
> 
> So here is the thing
> 
> *If you are pro life that is great, dolt have abortions. But dont tell other women what they can and can't do with their bodies
> 
> *The fact is, if it was men who were the ones who give birth, this debate wouldn't even be happening.
> 
> Its also ironic how it always seems like there are a number of politicians who are so called pro life yet have asked their mistresses to get abortions.



i wish people had the same train of thought when it comes to drugs and our bullshit war on them in this country. my body, my choice!


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> Late-stage American democracy is hilarious to behold. Every day more evidence pours in for the case that numerous intelligence agency officials utilized all of the power at their disposal to spy on and prevent the final general-election electoral success of a major presidential campaign which secured the nomination of the Republican Party... And, *effectively, no one cares*. :lol


But the Avengers came out and GOT finished???


----------



## birthday_massacre

DesolationRow said:


> Late-stage American democracy is hilarious to behold. Every day more evidence pours in for the case that numerous intelligence agency officials utilized all of the power at their disposal to spy on and prevent the final general-election electoral success of a major presidential campaign which secured the nomination of the Republican Party... And, effectively, no one cares. :lol


No one ever cares when the GOP cheats to win, its the only way they can win. That is just how it is because the DNC is so weak.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*'I wake up and review photos of men who want to kill me': Ocasio-Cortez*

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/...czY4CpBvnmfFMjf88zLg-xfnoWKVfyugk0ESN-4lSlYuM



> Like a lot of people, American congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's morning routine consists of getting a morning coffee and scrolling through her social media.
> 
> But for Ocasio-Cortez, this daily task often interrupted by routinely reviewing photos of men who want to kill her.
> 
> "I've had mornings where I wake up & the 1st thing I do w/ my coffee is review photos of the men (it’s always men) who want to kill me," she wrote on Twitter.
> 
> The Democrat who has 4.27 million Twitter followers says the threats have spiked in volume after she was recently attacked in a video aired on Fox News.
> 
> The video broadcast on Memorial Day - the US day of remembrance commemorating the armed forces - features images of American flags and tanks, and an image of her alongside 'American adversaries' Kim Jong Un and Fidel Castro.
> 
> "What people don’t (maybe do) realize is when orgs air these hateful messages, my life changes bc of the flood of death threats they inspire," she wrote on Twitter.


Video: 






Stay classy FOX for showing that propaganda. How pathetic are these people sending death threats and making videos like that? No lives, no friends, small dicks.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> *'I wake up and review photos of men who want to kill me': Ocasio-Cortez*
> 
> https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/...czY4CpBvnmfFMjf88zLg-xfnoWKVfyugk0ESN-4lSlYuM
> 
> 
> 
> Video:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stay classy FOX for showing that propaganda. How pathetic are these people sending death threats and making videos like that? No lives, no friends, small dicks.


Even more proof how violent the right is. And what makes things worse this is the gun nut side too.


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> Even more proof how violent the right is. And what makes things worse this is the gun nut side too.


While I would expect this from Tabloid Newstainment FOX, I wouldn't fall in to the trap of saying this is a right thing. These are fringe idiots, most likely social misfits who don't have any outlet apart from this hateful stuff. It's not isolated to right or left or whatever. Anyone can make death threats.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134175470331842560
What the actual fuck Michael Richard Pence?


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134175470331842560
> What the actual fuck Michael Richard Pence?


Surely too many of those soldiers will end up dead, which puzzles me because his ilk like to bleat that EVERY LIFE IS SACRED when it comes to.....


----------



## DOPA

Has AOC been outted as a white supremacist? .


----------



## Miss Sally

Deadhead said:


> Has AOC been outted as a white supremacist? .


Didn't she get called out for talking in a "black voice" when talking to black people recently? :surprise:

I think she maybe one, I mean she did skirt the question on reparations... Her boyfriend is also white too. She pals around with known anti-semites..


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134467483128270848
This was immensely satisfying to watch. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

good to see how these threads are pretty much just shit posters now lol


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> good to see how these threads are pretty much just shit posters now lol


Been that way after the decent right wingers left.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Didn't she get called out for talking in a "black voice" when talking to black people recently? :surprise:
> 
> I think she maybe one, I mean she did skirt the question on reparations... Her boyfriend is also white too. She pals around with known anti-semites..


She did.


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134467483128270848
> This was immensely satisfying to watch. :lol


wow rip Elizabeth Warren

she never had a shot anyway, but this is total destruction.


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> She did.


The plot thickens!

I think this is more than enough evidence now she is one. :surprise:


----------



## CamillePunk

Team Obama Tells Iran: Don’t Escalate, Don’t Take Trump’s Bait

https://www.thedailybeast.com/team-obama-tells-iran-dont-escalate-dont-take-trumps-bait

Why are former Obama officials passing information between Iran's government and US Congress? Why are they advising Iran on how to counter-act Trump, the President of the United States? This seems fairly treasonous, or at least treason-adjacent, to me. :deandre


----------



## CamillePunk

Cocaine Mitch strikes again. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48486672



> Nearly all applicants for US visas will have to submit their social media details under newly adopted rules.


Draconian.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Draykorinee said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48486672
> 
> 
> 
> Draconian.


How is that even legal:?


----------



## CamillePunk

Gotta keep out the communists and Islamists fam. :trump


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Team Obama Tells Iran: Don’t Escalate, Don’t Take Trump’s Bait
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/team-obama-tells-iran-dont-escalate-dont-take-trumps-bait
> 
> Why are former Obama officials passing information between Iran's government and US Congress? Why are they advising Iran on how to counter-act Trump, the President of the United States? This seems fairly treasonous, or at least treason-adjacent, to me. :deandre


Repeated violations of the Logan Act which will of course go unpunished because there's a two tiered system of justice just like there is a two tiered system of standards in general, one for those on the left that is very tolerant and forgiving and one for those on the right that is zero tolerance and zero forgiveness

AKA the same old double standard applied as a matter of course in this country, one standard for the left, one for the right

I'll post the link when I get home but a new Harvard/Harris poll has 46% wanting Roe v. Wade to remain, 18% want it totally reversed and 36% modified (ie, to be less permissive of abortion). 54% against Roe v Wade :trump3

41% plurality wants abortion to be illegal save in cases of rape, incest, and medical necessity. AKA no more elective abortion

Only 14% support abortion after the beginning of the 3rd trimester being legal 

The tide continues to turn against baby killing. Americans haven't surrendered to Mammon and Baal just yet :banderas


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48486672
> 
> 
> 
> Draconian.


So you'd be okay with an ISIS fighter or some kind of deranged person getting visas because nobody bothered to look at their Social Media history? Funny, people are always complaining nobody pays attention to the signs when something bad happens.




CamillePunk said:


> Team Obama Tells Iran: Don’t Escalate, Don’t Take Trump’s Bait
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/team-obama-tells-iran-dont-escalate-dont-take-trumps-bait
> 
> Why are former Obama officials passing information between Iran's government and US Congress? Why are they advising Iran on how to counter-act Trump, the President of the United States? This seems fairly treasonous, or at least treason-adjacent, to me. :deandre


So team Obama are secret Iranian agents?! Where's the russiagate conspirator legion at to point out this wrong doing?!


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48486672
> 
> 
> 
> Draconian.
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd be okay with an ISIS fighter or some kind of deranged person getting visas because nobody bothered to look at their Social Media history? Funny, people are always complaining nobody pays attention to the signs when something bad happens.
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that the right wingers are happy about more surveillance. 

The fucking state of people who think a would be terrorist is going to tell the truth...


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> So you'd be okay with an ISIS fighter or some kind of deranged person getting visas because nobody bothered to look at their Social Media history? Funny, people are always complaining nobody pays attention to the signs when something bad happens.
> 
> 
> 
> !


So would you be ok with having everyone's guns taken away because terrorits may shoot people?


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> So would you be ok with having everyone's guns taken away because terrorits may shoot people?


Not remotely the same thing but I'll bite, how about we ban booze because drunk drivers kill people, pools because it's one of the biggest killers of kids, smoking because it causes cancer, fast food because it causes obesity and several diseases, sex because it causes STIs/STDs and unwanted pregnancies. :laugh:



Draykorinee said:


> Why am I not surprised that the right wingers are happy about more surveillance.
> 
> The fucking state of people who think a would be terrorist is going to tell the truth...


You come from a place that has you under 24/7 surveillance and arrests people for bad tweets, don't you feel safer?

Businesses already check your social media before even hiring you, it wouldn't surprise me if background checks now do too. Hell Facebook sells your info and Google compiles your search history. Go on, I double dare you to come to the US and type in some key words into the search bar, it will be great fun!

Half the time stupid people post shit on twitter, jihadists have posted stuff to twitter fairly often. I mean come on, people have been called out or found out from various social media postings. Think of the racists that been caught from their past social media postings being brought to light. :shrug


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So would you be ok with having everyone's guns taken away because terrorits may shoot people?
> 
> 
> 
> Not remotely the same thing but I'll bite, how about we ban booze because drunk drivers kill people, pools because it's one of the biggest killers of kids, smoking because it causes cancer, fast food because it causes obesity and several diseases, sex because it causes STIs/STDs and unwanted pregnancies. <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/WrestlingForum_2014RED/smilies/tango_face_smile_big.png" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> 
> 
> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the right wingers are happy about more surveillance.
> 
> The fucking state of people who think a would be terrorist is going to tell the truth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You come from a place that has you under 24/7 surveillance and arrests people for bad tweets, don't you feel safer?
> 
> Businesses already check your social media before even hiring you, it wouldn't surprise me if background checks now do too. Hell Facebook sells your info and Google compiles your search history. Go on, I double dare you to come to the US and type in some key words into the search bar, it will be great fun!
> 
> Half the time stupid people post shit on twitter, jihadists have posted stuff to twitter fairly often. I mean come on, people have been called out or found out from various social media postings. Think of the racists that been caught from their past social media postings being brought to light. <img src="https://i.imgur.com/VqmkupW.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Shrug" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

Visa agency : Do you have an Instagram or twitter account if so username please. 
Potential terrorist : no.

Okay, next.

The whole twitter conviction thing was absurd but it was some random Scottish judge and not the country as a whole, it was some weird legal clause that isn't enforcable in England where I live.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Visa agency : Do you have an Instagram or twitter account if so username please.
> Potential terrorist : no.
> 
> Okay, next.


So then why is it an issue? My job asks if you have Social Media, most people are dumb enough to say yes and or use their real IDs online. They're going to most likely check anyways.

For example, in the past years I've worked at my job.

Several Nurses have been reprimanded for posting anti-vax propaganda online.

An admin was quietly let go for being a racist transphobe and was exposed via social media.

A Doctor was busted for several Hippa violations for posting patient info and pictures online. 

Asking for and checking people's social media isn't anymore intrusive than a background check is and by the way, anyone can do one on you. :up Just like anyone can search for your online and get your social media history. Searches and library habits are also monitored. 

Really complaining about this is silly because there is no privacy. :shrug


----------



## DOPA

Miss Sally said:


> So you'd be okay with an ISIS fighter or some kind of deranged person getting visas because nobody bothered to look at their Social Media history? Funny, people are always complaining nobody pays attention to the signs when something bad happens.


As far as I'm aware, those who have links to terrorism, jihadism and islamism already have their social media accounts monitored by the United States.

I'm honestly surprised you don't see the potential for this to be abused down the road, particularly when the Democrats eventually get back into power.

Although it is not strictly social media, a good example of where this has been taken out of context to essentially censor and stop a political dissenter shall we say was when Lauren Southern was banned from the UK under the guise of terrorist legislation because she wanted to interview Tommy Robinson.

Regardless of what you feel about Lauren Southern, it is obviously clear that she's not a terrorist and she doesn't have a criminal conviction. Yet she was denied entry because she wanted to interview someone the British state deems undesirable.....not to mention because she is very critical of Islam, which again is something that has become a bit of a taboo here in the UK.

Do you honestly think that if someone like an AOC ever got into power, that they would not use this piece of legislation in an unjust way? Because I certainly can see the possibility.

It obviously depends on how much you trust the state, which in my view I trust them very little and there is already way too much surveillance and breaching of privacy in western countries. I want it be scaled back, not escalated.

As much as I am for immigration reform and tighter immigration particularly here in the UK, I don't agree with doing it this way. You don't need to review someone's social media account to reject someone coming over. Fuck what the fringe nutbags on the left think with their mass immigration/open border policies because they won't change their minds on it and they have very little justification for their views barring emotional platitudes and cliches anyway.

Using this to justify increasing the power of the state is dangerous.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05...0hMqhq1Gj-x4Sa5oaECdsA2izvKZdUgg9JbCoLKxLbtHg



> “I thought to myself that I didn’t want to die,” a Seattle woman named Lindsey said of her experience being raped last year in a car dealership bathroom. She continued, “And I didn’t want to die on a linoleum trailer bathroom floor. And I didn’t want my story to end there. And I kept fighting.”
> 
> Last year, Lindsay was (allegedly) raped by a 24-year-old man named Christopher Teel who was living in a nearby homeless camp. Lindsay had an appointment at the car dealership that day but had arrived a little early so she went to use the bathroom which was inside a trailer on the lot. Seconds after entering, 6’5″ Teel entered and forced his way into the bathroom stall and threw Lindsey on the floor where he raped her. It was later discovered that Teel had an outstanding warrant for criminal trespass (a misdemeanor) which had been on the books for a year at the time of the rape.
> 
> I wrote about this attack when it happened last year. It took place the same day as the head tax vote which was intended to raise money for homeless services in the city. That was the last I heard about the story. It seems that Lindsey didn’t want any additional attention at the time and never spoke to the media about what had happened to her. But that changed recently.
> 
> Lindsey approached City Journal editor Christopher Rufo and asked him to make a documentary about her experience. He agreed and the video (which you can view here) was posted on Facebook last month. That’s when the progressive backlash began:
> 
> We edited the film together and posted it to Facebook on April 22. That evening, it was the lead story on all four local Seattle news networks and had reached more than 35,000 people on social media. The public renewed its call for warrant checks at city-sanctioned encampments. Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan condemned the assault and commended “the courage of a survivor of sexual violence to speak out.”
> 
> *Then came the backlash. Progressive activists launched a counterattack against Lindsey on social media. Local journalist Erica Barnett claimed that the story drew attention because Lindsey is an “attractive blonde woman” and dismissed the victim’s “many tears” as theatrics serving a false narrative that the homeless represent a danger to the community. She demanded that the media temper its reporting and be mindful that “graphic descriptions of violent rape may be triggering for survivors.” Barnett’s message was amplified on left-wing Twitter; Councilwoman Lorena Gonzalez claimed that Lindsey’s story would create fear and cause harm to communities “that may already be triggered.”…
> 
> Seattle’s activist class seems, then, to have more compassion for transient criminals than for the victims of their crimes. Lindsey’s story should be a clarion call for everyone who cares about violence against women. But in the tortured logic of intersectionality, the story of a homeless rapist demands “context,” while the white, blonde, middle-class target of his assault is an unsympathetic victim.*
> 
> What Lindsey wants is for the situation in her city to change. “What we are doing isn’t working. What we are doing right now is actually harming the city,” she says in the video. That’s a conclusion that a lot of Seattle residents have been reaching recently with regard to the city’s approach to homelessness. But there are many who are invested in the current approach. They don’t like it when their solutions are questioned or criticized and they are pushing back at anyone who says something they don’t like, including this 40-year-old mother who was a victim of rape. Again, I recommend you view the video of Lindsey telling her story here. Here’s a local news report reacting to the video.


BELIEVE ALL WOMEN......except when it goes against your political narrative.

Normally when an accusation of rape is detailed by a woman, there are leftists who immediately side with the accuser and scold the man in question as an evil rapist or sexual assaulter without any thought of due process or the accused being innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of the truth of the story, the accuser is believed unwittingly and the accused is condemned as the guilty party who must be thrown to the wolves. What happened to Judge Kavanaugh is a perfect example.

Except, not in this case. Because the accuser is a white blonde woman who according to leftists comes from a privileged background and the accused is a homeless man who is in an impoverished state, it is now the homeless man who is now the victim of this said woman's false narrative and it is the rape victim in this case if she is to be believed, that is the aggressor due to her propping up an untrue story to belittle the homeless as dangerous.

This is the state of intersectionality and privilege politics. A caring leftist crowd who would normally side with someone who on the surface appears to be the victim in this situation turned on that said woman because of her race and class in comparison to the accused assaulter. Unbelievable hypocrisy but honestly, is anyone whose been paying attention surprised at this point?

Intersectional politics and privilege theory needs to die.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Really complaining about this is silly because there is no privacy. <img src="https://i.imgur.com/VqmkupW.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Shrug" class="inlineimg" />


I'm not inclined to massively disagree with the latter, I've got 5 alexas on my house all in the knowledge what I say is recorded. 

But I chose that. 

As to whether its silly complaining about it, possibly, but I'm only commenting on a forum so it's not like I'm that fussed. It's a way for the government to force more data through them to do god knows what with, it's not a good move and just encourages self censorship with practically zero evidence or logical thought process in to how it will do anything.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> I'm not inclined to massively disagree with the latter, I've got 5 alexas on my house all in the knowledge what I say is recorded.
> 
> But I chose that.
> 
> As to whether its silly complaining about it, possibly, but I'm only commenting on a forum so it's not like I'm that fussed. It's a way for the government to force more data through them to do god knows what with,* it's not a good move and just encourages self censorship* with practically zero evidence or logical thought process in to how it will do anything.


Completely agree with you on this but I don't think it will matter one way or another because it's already checked. I just don't see the harm in checking for social media, if someone comes over with a Visa, most likely their employer will be checking that anyways. 

Besides our Government would just do it illegally anyways. :laugh:


----------



## deepelemblues

:sodone :sodone :sodone

I hope this doesn't get censored because the Daily Caller :heston is considered :heston to be some kind of unacceptable entity :heston by someone on the staff :heston who clearly doesn't know their asshole from their elbows :heston


----------



## DOPA

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/01/brex...eterborough-election-bookies-predict-9773100/



> Bookmakers say the Brexit Party is likely to win its first seat in Parliament next week. Its leader Nigel Farage has said the outcome of the Peterborough by-election on Thursday will be ‘even bigger’ than the European elections in which the Brexit Party won 29 seats. The constituency is normally a closely fought battle between the Labour Party and the Tories but bookies are giving the Brexit Party generous odds of 1/5.
> 
> The by-election was called after the city’s previous MP Fiona Onasanya was forced out after she was jailed for lying about a speeding offence. Onasanya was elected as a Labour MP and was later suspended from the party after she was sentenced. The Conservative Party are trailing behind with odds of 33/1 compared to 9/2 for Labour and 9/1 for the Liberal Democrats. Speaking at a packed rally in Peterborough earlier today, Mr Farage said the by-election is ‘the opportunity for the next chapter in this great story’ following the European Parliament elections. He said he thought the Brexit Party ‘must be doing quite well’ as former prime minister Gordon Brown visited Peterborough this week to campaign for the Labour Party.
> 
> The former UKIP leader added: ‘It shows you that our political establishment were absolutely mortified by what happened last Sunday (in the European elections). ‘But in some ways what happens here on Thursday is even bigger.’ He said the Labour Party has a ‘very good, well-honed by-election campaign machine’ and has been working the ground for ‘many months’. Urging party supporters against complacency, he added: ‘Don’t underestimate how hard the Labour Party will try.’
> 
> Mr Farage said if his party’s candidate Mike Greene becomes the first Brexit Party MP then ‘we will have them on the run’. The parliamentary hopeful is a businessman who has appeared on Channel 4’s Secret Millionaire. The Brexit Party is still yet to publish a manifesto – leading pro-remain campaign group Led by Donkeys to write some for the party on billboards. When asked about future policies Mr Farage said he would achieve Brexit, fight to get rid of ‘ridiculous, expensive vanity projects like HS2’ and be ‘on the side of’ small businesses. He also says he will stand as a candidate in any future general election.
> 
> Mr Farage added: ‘If we don’t leave the EU on October 31 in a way that is recognisable to those that voted for Brexit, then I predict the end of a two-party system that now serves nothing but itself and not this country.’ Mr Greene said the question he is asked most often on the doorstep is: ‘What’s in your manifesto?’ He said: ‘We don’t want a manifesto because we believe it’s come to mean political broken promises. ‘We don’t want to make theoretical promises, we want practical delivery.’
> 
> Mr Greene went on to make a series of pledges to the Peterborough constituency, including improving education and helping to create new jobs. He said candidates from the established political parties will become ‘backbench whipping fodder’ if elected.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn said his party’s Peterborough by-election campaign is focused on ‘core Labour values’, with environmental protection and ending austerity key issues. Addressing activists in the city today, he said: ‘A Labour government will end austerity, a Labour government will invest in the future and a Labour government will deal with the crucial issue that we all face, that of climate change and the environment.’ He suggested the local council could start by addressing fly tipping. The Labour Party’s by-election candidate is Lisa Forbes who Mr Corbyn said ‘will be a wonderful MP’.
> 
> He said winning the seat would be a ‘good step towards getting a general election and a Labour government’. As he left the rally, Mr Corbyn refused to answer questions about senior Labour official Pete Willsman, who was suspended on Friday over alleged anti-Semitic comments caught on tape. Mr Corbyn told journalists: ‘It’s good of you to come here and report on the by-election.’
> 
> A party supporter said as she walked past: ‘The anti-Semitism stuff – it’s all made up.’ Speaking at Leeds University Student Union today, Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott said: ‘It is so important to combat the far-right. And by saying far-right, I include the Brexit Party. ‘They breed division, fear and anger. They pull communities apart. And the Labour Party’s mission is to bring communities together.’


Will the momentum from the European elections continue? Here's to hoping (Y).


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1135927421801312261
A wonderful, succinct, unassailable argument.


----------



## skypod

Have always wondered re: free speech. Do free speech advocates believe in hardcore pornography showing on television at 2 o'clock in the day? Can we say cunt when children are present now? 

I always hear "you're either for free speech or you're not. You can't have some, you take all". The problem is NO-ONE on earth is actually for complete free speech. Everyone has their limits.


----------



## deepelemblues

Red is cartel control
Yellow is disputed control
Green is government control

Tan is mostly uninhabited areas

Why is the border with this failed state open at all again?


----------



## DesoloutionRow

skypod said:


> Have always wondered re: free speech. Do free speech advocates believe in hardcore pornography showing on television at 2 o'clock in the day? Can we say cunt when children are present now?
> 
> I always hear "you're either for free speech or you're not. You can't have some, you take all". The problem is NO-ONE on earth is actually for complete free speech. Everyone has their limits.


You don't fully understand what free speech entails. Free speech means you are free to say what you like during your personal time, without fear of persecution by the government. You aren't immune to the consequences of your free speech though, such as your company firing you or people ostracizing you. Your example of broadcasting pornography on a privately owned network at 2:00 PM is not an example of free speech.


----------



## El Grappleador

I was thinking about this situation, and... IDK if Biden be the candidate who defeat Trump. If Democrats want to win, they need to choose a candidate whose not linked with the Clintons.


----------



## skypod

Asked a few weeks ago why AOC's videos like this seem to be popular but I don't see any from other congresspeople. Why are her videos usually in my feed? 

Does she have a right-wing counterpart that does similar stuff that someone can make me aware of?


----------



## Draykorinee

Tucker Carlson is such a dimwit.

https://youtu.be/Mkgu33cOk3w

He says he's fighting against the tyranny of the metric system...

Interesting that American currency was metric way before a lot of Europe.


----------



## El Grappleador

It seems negotiations between the US and Mexico forward slow. Mexico sent more than 20000 soldiers into the border with Guatemala. However, Trump does not matter the fact about Mexico is an important social trade partner. 

Meanwhile, presidente AMLO call out the people to defend Mexico's dignity.

I'll be partial: They are like oil and water. They can't mix. Both have poor view about the world. Both want live as if they were on 20th century. 

Moreover, anybody think to talk about politics is become disgusting?


----------



## virus21

El Grappleador said:


> It seems negotiations between the US and Mexico forward slow. Mexico sent more than 20000 soldiers into the border with Guatemala. However, Trump does not matter the fact about Mexico is an important social trade partner.
> 
> Meanwhile, presidente AMLO call out the people to defend Mexico's dignity.
> 
> I'll be partial: They are like oil and water. They can't mix. Both have poor view about the world. Both want live as if they were on 20th century.
> 
> Moreover, anybody think to talk about politics is become disgusting?


Becoming disgusting?!!!


----------



## El Grappleador

virus21 said:


> El Grappleador said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems negotiations between the US and Mexico forward slow. Mexico sent more than 20000 soldiers into the border with Guatemala. However, Trump does not matter the fact about Mexico is an important social trade partner.
> 
> Meanwhile, presidente AMLO call out the people to defend Mexico's dignity.
> 
> I'll be partial: They are like oil and water. They can't mix. Both have poor view about the world. Both want live as if they were on 20th century.
> 
> Moreover, anybody think to talk about politics is become disgusting?
> 
> 
> 
> Becoming disgusting?!!!
Click to expand...


Yes. It's disgusting trust my hope and dreams on uncompetents politicians who believe they had a magic wand to resolve our problems. That not really, though. The reality is they are single persons with high elevated egos who forget their are beign humans before than politicians.

Sorry guys, I can't depend only from a politician to strength my will. They ain't saints.


----------



## virus21

El Grappleador said:


> Yes. It's disgusting trust my hope and dreams on uncompetents politicians who believe they had a magic wand to resolve our problems. That not really, though. The reality is they are single persons with high elevated egos who forget their are beign humans before than politicians.
> 
> Sorry guys, I can't depend only from a politician to strength my will. They ain't saints.


Then you are wiser than most


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Tucker Carlson is such a dimwit.
> 
> https://youtu.be/Mkgu33cOk3w
> 
> He says he's fighting against the tyranny of the metric system...
> 
> Interesting that American currency was metric way before a lot of Europe.


Pretty sure this interview is almost entirely tongue-in-cheek on Tucker's part.


----------



## Tater

Jericho on the show this week and Jesse started him with hard questions about unionizing wrestlers that he clearly was not ready to answer. Jesse got him to open up a bit more as the interview progressed but I think Jericho was a bit taken aback when it first started. Great show this week.


----------



## CamillePunk

Pro wrestlers should definitely unionize. 

Meanwhile 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1137521124793823232
:duck


----------



## deepelemblues

Imperial weights and measures are the grandest legacy of the British empire and you can take my 5,280 feet in a mile and 12 inches in a foot FROM MY COLD DEAD TOES and my quarts and gallons from MY COLD EMPTY HALF GALLON OF SWEET TEA THAT HAS ONLY HAD VODKA IN IT FOR YEARS and my pounds FROM MY COLD IMPERIAL SCALE


----------



## Viper87

Tater said:


> Jericho on the show this week and Jesse started him with hard questions about unionizing wrestlers that he clearly was not ready to answer. Jesse got him to open up a bit more as the interview progressed but I think Jericho was a bit taken aback when it first started. Great show this week.


Always respected Jesse before and thought he was on point with plitics for the most part. Lost great respect for him during his show a few weeks ago, making inaccurate assumptions about other countries and not calling his guest out on her B.S. 
I guess "The Mind" isn't as sharp as it once was and Jesse looks rough and weather beaten these days. Sad.


----------



## Arkham258

skypod said:


> Have always wondered re: free speech. Do free speech advocates believe in hardcore pornography showing on television at 2 o'clock in the day? Can we say cunt when children are present now?


Why not? Parents should monitor what their kids watch on TV. And my generation knew what most curse words were and what sex was at a young age. You know, back when the young generation weren't a bunch of pussies like they are today that need to be protected from everything

And besides, only select cable channels that you have to pay for show porn anyway. It's not like you'd ever seen that on basic cable channels so your example is a moot point


----------



## Draykorinee

Not really a moot point because those channels are only select channels because of regulations preventing the showing of porn at certain times on certain channels...


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1138932880938348544
:kermit


----------



## skypod

Think he meant to tweet "I really admire this guy, honestly."

Straights who decided they were cool with gay people just a couple of years ago and use that in their anti-Islam agenda can fuck off. You were never on our side when it wasn't popular so stop with your disingenuous "guys I'm trying to help you!" bullshit.

Anti-gay Muslims can die in a fire too btw. I don't care about anyone in this debate.


----------



## yeahbaby!

skypod said:


> Think he meant to tweet "I really admire this guy, honestly."
> 
> Straights who decided they were cool with gay people just a couple of years ago and use that in their anti-Islam agenda can fuck off. You were never on our side when it wasn't popular so stop with your disingenuous "guys I'm trying to help you!" bullshit.
> 
> Anti-gay Muslims can die in a fire too btw. I don't care about anyone in this debate.


PURE VIRTUE SIGNALLING!!!


----------



## Draykorinee

It's a nonsense idea that Islam will take over the West they make up a tiny percentage, the fastest growing religion is non religion.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> It's a nonsense idea that Islam will take over the West they make up a tiny percentage, the fastest growing religion is non religion.


Yeah pretty sure world wide Islam is the fastest growing Religion, you'll never get rid of Religion. 

Will Islam take over the West? Hardly but it will cause problems in some areas, didn't complaining Muslims get LGBT stuff booted from some of your schools? Kudos to them, they already have more power than the wimpy Christians do with few numbers. :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a nonsense idea that Islam will take over the West they make up a tiny percentage, the fastest growing religion is non religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah pretty sure world wide Islam is the fastest growing Religion, you'll never get rid of Religion.
Click to expand...

It most likely is and yes you won't.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> It most likely is and yes you won't.


Why can't a Religion that advocates for common sense, education, equal rights, living within one's means and proper parenting become popular? :hmmm


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1139301939731148801
That'd be one way for Iran to get on my good side. :lol


----------



## DOPA

Draykorinee said:


> It's a nonsense idea that Islam will take over the West they make up a tiny percentage, the fastest growing religion is non religion.


That may be true in terms of individuals, in fact the last time I read it was close to 50% of the UK doesn't identify with a religion, it may even be higher than that but it's been a while since I checked the numbers.

However some important points that need to be addressed is the fact particularly from immigrant populations, the birth rates amongst Islamic communities in European countries are at a much higher rate than those of the west who thanks to the invention of birth control and the declining importance of starting families or at least having a lot of children due to women now being able to have full time careers shows not only is Islam the fastest growing religion in terms of the amount of people being born into the religion and proscribing to their doctrines but also if the future trend continues that Islam will likely in around 50-100 years be the biggest religion in Europe. 

Now admittedly a lot can change in that time and it might not even be a big problem if in future, things could stabilize and you have the vast majority of those from the Islamic religion following Western customs and values. The problem is, a significant minority right now fundamentally reject western principles and I'm not even talking about Jihadist or Islamist groups, I'm talking about fundamentalist ultra conservative Muslims who don't preach for a Caliphate but hold positions which are incompatible with what the west stands for. If that isn't addressed and sorted out, we could see bigger problems in the future in my opinion.

In the UK it's actually in some ways worse because we have a unique problem at least from what I know in that our extremists and ultra conservative Muslims are not majority coming from new immigrants but 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation immigrants who have turned to the traditions and customs from their familial and ethnic background instead of those of the UK. There's a longer conversation as to why I think this has happened but the problem is coming from the younger generations who in Islamic communities generally speaking are becoming more not less religiously conservative which is completely backwards as to what I've been used to in regards to trends from other religions, particularly Christianity.

Not to mention you have a notable amount of Brits including someone I know who is close to me who are also converting....not that I'm saying all or even most of them have extreme views. But the problem isn't going away any time soon.


----------



## DougalShea

skypod said:


> Have always wondered re: free speech. Do free speech advocates believe in hardcore pornography showing on television at 2 o'clock in the day? Can we say cunt when children are present now?
> 
> I always hear "you're either for free speech or you're not. You can't have some, you take all". The problem is NO-ONE on earth is actually for complete free speech. Everyone has their limits.


Nice strawman bruh


----------



## skypod

DougalShea said:


> Nice strawman bruh



You don't think there's people that think "why is saying ****** so offensive to you queers" and at the same time don't want a gay wedding Arthur episode shown on their tv? It was more a shot at, if you think saying ****** should be perfectly acceptable, then you should have the balls to be consistently 100% on all free speech.


----------



## DesolationRow

Full article with the findings from the polling displayed with the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-new...te-choice-warren-harris-sanders-close-behind/



> CBS News Battleground Tracker poll: Biden leads, with Warren, Harris, Sanders close behind
> BY ANTHONY SALVANTO, KABIR KHANNA, JENNIFER DE PINTO AND FRED BACKUS
> 
> JUNE 16, 2019 / 8:30 AM / CBS NEWS
> 
> The belief that he could fare best against President Trump is currently propelling Joe Biden in the early Democratic nomination race by two measures — vote preference, and the delegates that would come with them. But others — including Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — are in the mix, at least in terms of the candidates voters are considering.
> 
> This study looked at the Democratic contest across the places it will matter first: the entirety of 18 states that will shape the initial 2020 fight through Super Tuesday, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. And CBS News converted Democrats' vote choices across all those states into delegates, because that's the count that will ultimately matter — that is, the nomination contest selects delegates to the Democratic convention next year.
> 
> CBS News first asked which candidates voters are considering supporting — and told them they could pick as many or as few as they liked. (As with many decisions people make, early in the process they'll narrow their options before settling on one.)
> 
> Biden gets the most consideration, from a majority 55% of Democrats. Warren (49%), Harris (45%) and Bernie Sanders (43%) are trailing closely in that regard.
> 
> Pete Buttigieg is being considered by just under a third (32%) across the earliest states. And in keeping with their view that the field is too large, on average the number of candidates voters are considering is actually relatively small — just under four.
> 
> Biden is the most effective at translating consideration into a first-choice vote. He leads across the early states in vote preference with 31% of Democratic primary voters, compared to Warren's 17%, Sanders' 16%, and Harris' 10%. Biden converts most of those considering him into picking him as their first choice when pressed, but fewer of those considering Warren or Sanders — roughly a third – pick those candidates as their first choice.


http://news.yahoo.com/poll-shows-trump-trailing-biden-four-other-democrats-164318873.html



> New poll shows Trump trailing Biden and four other Democrats
> AFP
> Brian KNOWLTON
> ,AFP•June 16, 2019
> 
> Washington (AFP) - A nationwide Fox News poll released Sunday shows President Donald Trump trailing former vice president Joe Biden and no fewer than four other Democratic contenders as early campaigning for the 2020 election begins to gain steam.
> 
> A separate survey of battleground states, by CBS, shows Democrats strongly favor Biden as the candidate most likely to beat Trump in next year's elections.
> 
> The Fox poll showed Biden leading Trump by 49 percent to 39 percent among all registered voters nationwide, while Senator Bernie Sanders held nearly the same advantage over the president, at 49 percent to 40 percent.
> 
> Holding edges of 1 or 2 points over Trump -- albeit within the poll's 3-point margin of error -- were Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, as well as Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.
> 
> The polling comes more than 500 days before the November 3, 2020 election, an eternity in the political world. One widely viewed tweet this week shows five presidential candidates in recent decades who trailed at this point in their campaigns -- including Trump -- but who went on to win.
> 
> The president does not officially launch his re-election campaign until Tuesday, at a rally-style event in a huge arena in Orlando, Florida.
> 
> - Battleground states -
> 
> Still, the Fox poll, conducted June 9 to June 12, is seen as heartening by Democrats eager to chip away at Trump's popularity, particularly in key battleground states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
> 
> Trump's campaign recently dismissed leaked data from its own pollsters showing Biden with double-digit leads in battleground states. The campaign at first denied the data, but then acknowledged it, branding it as "ancient" because it dated from March.
> 
> But the new CBS poll confirms a clear Biden lead in battleground states among Democratic voters, as the crowded race for that party's nomination begins to take shape.
> 
> A belief among Democratic voters that Biden is best positioned to defeat Trump in 2020 was cited by three-quarters of Democrats as a decisive factor in their support.
> 
> - Warren on the rise -
> 
> The CBS News/YouGov Battleground Tracker survey, conducted May 31 to June 12, said Biden had the backing of 31 percent of Democratic primary voters in 18 key early-voting states.
> 
> Biden was trailed by senators Elizabeth Warren (17 percent), Sanders (16 percent) and Kamala Harris (10 percent).
> 
> The poll, with a 1.5 percent margin of error, looked at states including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- which hold primary elections in February, at the top of the electoral calendar -- as well as states in the upper Midwest, where Trump eked out narrow but decisive victories in 2016.
> 
> Elizabeth Warren has been steadily rising in the polls, only recently reaching statistical equivalency with Sanders, whose support has been slipping.
> 
> Sanders acknowledged on Sunday that "polls go up and polls go down" but insisted that the survey showed he was the strongest candidate to defeat Trump.
> 
> "I think we can win in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan and some of the other battleground states," the self-styled democratic socialist said on "Fox News Sunday."
> 
> Democrats begin more earnestly winnowing down their field of nearly two dozen candidates when they hold successive nights of televised debates on June 26 and 27.
> 
> Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 29-year-old New Yorker who has emerged as a heroine to young progressives, suggested Sunday that Democrats could be in trouble in 2020 if they fail to nominate an energizing candidate with working-class appeal.
> 
> She said she would support the 76-year-old Biden if he wins the nomination but added on ABC that "we have to really factor in the enthusiasm of voters ... an issue that we had in 2016."
> 
> "We need to pick a candidate that's going to be exciting to vote for -- all people, women, people of all genders, races, income levels."
> 
> But the Fox poll found that Democratic voters, by roughly three-to-one, wanted a nominee who would provide "steady, reliable leadership" rather than a "bold new agenda."


----------



## CamillePunk

Wow, if you believe the media it's starting to sound like creepy sleepy handsy uncle Joe Biden has a 97% chance of winning. :shocked: Guess there's no point in Trump supporters even showing up for election day!


----------



## ShiningStar

Would be very shocked if Uncle Joe is the nom as I think his numbers will slide once he get's front runner scrutiny. Think it will be either Warren because the media are her cheerleaders,Pete because he is the most tv friendly,or Kamala because she is playing the most utr and safest similiar to Kerry 04.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Creepy, sleazy* Joe Biden has what it takes to be Prez IMO, since he already has the proven traits in common with Big Don.


----------



## birthday_massacre

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1140652304795951105


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1140297634751664128
Can someone please get the word out that we are a racist dystopia so people will stop flying halfway across the world just to get here?


----------



## henrymark

https://www.spin.com/2019/06/trump-mulvaney-coughing-breakfast-2020/




> “I don’t like that, you know, I don’t like that,” Trump said. “If you’re going to cough, please leave the room,” Trump responded. “You just can’t, you just can’t cough. Boy, oh boy.”





> After the coughing quotes hit Twitter, Washington Post reporter Jackie Alemany chimed in with a quote from a 2016 Trump campaign worker. “I was told by multiple people when I came aboard to never cough or sneeze while in the presence of Trump,” she wrote. “He thinks it’s a sign of weakness and lack of control. Nobody ever recovers.”



Now who does this remind us of. Jesus Christ no wonder they are BFFs :lol


----------



## DOPA

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/17/week...ead-mob-100-youths-targets-westfield-9973748/



> A fourth person has been murdered following a weekend of violence in London that saw riot police deployed to a shopping centre. The latest killing took place in Stratford, east London, in which a man in his 40s was found collapsed as a result of stab wounds at 12.40am today. He was pronounced dead 20 minutes later and police have put in place an order that allows them to stop and search people throughout the entire borough of Newham until 6pm today. Over the weekend three people were killed in 24 hours after six stabbings took place across the capital and violence broke out after a robbery near Stratford Westfield Shopping Centre. Officers were jumped on and had bottles pelted at them by around 100 youths.
> 
> Witnesses fled the scene and at least one woman was injured in the stampede after falling down some stairs. Police managed to eventually control the situation, arresting three people on suspicion of robbery and possession of an offensive weapon after a hunting knife was discovered. Among the dead from the weekend of violence is construction student Cheyon Evans, 18, who was stabbed to death in Tooting, south west London, at 4.42pm on Friday. Witnesses said he was stabbed repeatedly by a gang of teenagers and two people, a teenager, 17, who cannot be named and Mohammed Nadir Dafallah, 18, have been charged. His sister Charice said: ‘You knew how much I loved you, my best friend, my right hand, my everything. ‘Words can’t even explain how heartbroken I am. The fact that I’ll never see you, hug you or hear your voice again kills me.’
> 
> Some 12 minutes later Eniola Aluka, 19, was shot repeatedly in the neck and chest in Plumstead, south east London, leading to the arrest of four teenage boys, aged 16 to 18, and a girl, 17. The girl and three of the boys have been released. At 2pm on Saturday a man was stabbed in a field near a children’s nursery in Tower Hamlets, east London. Two men, 33 and 28, were arrested for murder. The spate of attacks led to criticism of Sadiq Khan from Donald Trump, who called the London mayor a ‘disaster’. Retweeting a post by right-wing commentator Katie Hopkins about the killings, the president said the capital needed a new mayor ‘ASAP’. The original post by Hopkins called the capital ‘Stab-City’ and ‘Khan’s Londonistan’ alongside two screenshots of BBC News articles detailing the violence. A City Hall spokesman said Mr Khan was focusing on supporting communities and he was ‘not going to waste his time’ responding to the president’s tweet.
> 
> Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matthew Twist, said: ‘Firstly, our thoughts are with all the victims’ families and friends who are facing the most devastating tragedy imaginable this weekend and indeed to their wider communities. ‘We made a significant number of arrests in relation to the three incidents and officers are undertaking further activities, following up additional investigative leads to ensure that we achieve justice for the families of those affected by violence in the last few days. ‘We have increased the coverage of the Violent Crime Task Force in targeted areas across London this weekend and officers from across the boroughs, supported by colleagues from specialist units, will continue to undertake high-visibility patrols which will remain in place today and into the start of the week. ‘We have been using a number of operational tactics in targeted locations, to prevent further violence and to provide reassurance to the communities in those areas.
> 
> ‘The circumstances, causes and motives for any homicide or serious violence incident are different and unique, and require different investigative strategies and approaches. ‘But we are taking a service-wide response and all officers right across London continue to be relentless in our pursuit of those who bring violence to our communities. ‘The public also play a huge role in helping to both prevent and detect crime.’


This happened not too far away from where I live.


----------



## krtgolfing

Deadhead said:


> https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/17/week...ead-mob-100-youths-targets-westfield-9973748/
> 
> 
> 
> This happened not too far away from where I live.


Yikes! Wife and I were thinking of traveling to London next year. Having second thoughts after reading this. Crazy world we live in.


----------



## DOPA

krtgolfing said:


> Yikes! Wife and I were thinking of traveling to London next year. Having second thoughts after reading this. Crazy world we live in.


To be fair, as long as you stay around Central London you should be fine. Stratford around the Olympic Park/Westfield isn't normally that bad either, not sure why this happened honestly. I wouldn't let it put you off from travelling as a tourist.

I will say there has been a huge up tick and problem with crime in London though since Sadiq Khan has been Mayor and he hasn't done enough to try and fix the problem and has instead been focusing on priorities which often aren't important.

His supporters keep claiming it's the fault of the Conservative government due to cuts in policing but that only works as far as Khan shows that tackling knife crime as an example is one of his biggest priorities. He has failed to do this and thus he deserves the criticism that has been leveled at him.


----------



## skypod

Deadhead said:


> To be fair, as long as you stay around Central London you should be fine. Stratford around the Olympic Park/Westfield isn't normally that bad either, not sure why this happened honestly. I wouldn't let it put you off from travelling as a tourist.
> 
> I will say there has been a huge up tick and problem with crime in London though since Sadiq Khan has been Mayor and he hasn't done enough to try and fix the problem and has instead been focusing on priorities which often aren't important.
> 
> His supporters keep claiming it's the fault of the Conservative government due to cuts in policing but that only works as far as Khan shows that tackling knife crime as an example is one of his biggest priorities. He has failed to do this and thus he deserves the criticism that has been leveled at him.




The only veiled suggestion people are giving Khan to fix London is "kick out those nasty brown people and put them in a ship out to sea". 

As if income equality and low opportunities have never increased a crime rate in a white city before. 


Anyway fuck London. Go to Edinburgh or Manchester or something instead.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-childsoldiers-exclusive/exclusive-pompeo-blocks-inclusion-of-saudis-on-u-s-child-soldiers-list-sources-idUSKCN1TJ25H



> *Exclusive: Overruling his experts, Pompeo keeps Saudis off U.S. child soldiers list*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has blocked the inclusion of Saudi Arabia on a U.S. list of countries that recruit child soldiers, dismissing his experts’ findings that a Saudi-led coalition has been using under-age fighters in Yemen’s civil war, according to four people familiar with the matter.
> 
> The decision, which drew immediate criticism from human rights activists and a top Democratic lawmaker, could prompt new accusations that U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is prioritizing security and economic interests in relations with oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a major U.S. ally and arms customer.
> 
> Pompeo’s move followed unusually intense internal debate. It comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, the Saudis’ bitter regional rival.
> 
> State Department experts recommended adding Saudi Arabia to the soon-to-be released list based in part on news reports and human rights groups’ assessments that the desert kingdom has hired child fighters from Sudan to fight for the U.S.-backed coalition in Yemen, the four sources said.
> 
> The experts’ recommendation faced resistance from some other State Department officials who, according to three of the sources, argued that it was not clear whether the Sudanese forces were under the control of Sudanese officers or directed by the Saudi-led coalition.
> 
> A New York Times report in December cited Sudanese fighters saying their Saudi and United Arab Emirates commanders directed them at a safe distance from the fighting against the coalition’s foes, Iran-aligned Houthi militias.
> 
> “The allegations of recruiting child soldiers are completely incorrect and are not based on any evidence or factual findings,” said Colonel Turki al-Malki, a spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition. He instead accused the Saudis’ foes of using child fighters in Yemen.
> 
> Pompeo rejected the recommendation from the experts, who are from the State Department’s anti-human trafficking office, said the four sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. The office has a key role in investigating the use of child soldiers worldwide.”The United States condemns the unlawful recruitment and use of child soldiers. We place great importance on ending the practice wherever it occurs,” a State Department official said in response to Reuters’ questions. The official, however, did not specifically address the Saudi decision or whether any consideration was given to Riyadh’s security ties to Washington.
> 
> Instead of adding Saudi Arabia to the list, Sudan will be reinstated after being removed last year, three of the sources said.
> 
> A spokesman for Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, which has contributed fighters to the Yemen war, said the force is affiliated with Sudan’s military. “Based on Sudanese laws, it does not recruit minors,” he said. He did not directly respond to a question on who controlled Sudanese forces in Yemen.
> 
> The UAE government did not respond to a request for comment.
> 
> The child soldiers list will be part of the State Department’s annual global Trafficking in Persons report, which is due to be released on Thursday in a ceremony led by Pompeo and Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter.
> 
> * BAN ON U.S. AID*
> 
> The Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 requires the State Department to report annually on countries using child fighters, defined as “any person under 18 years of age who takes a direct part in hostilities as a member of governmental armed forces.”
> 
> Foreign militaries on the list cannot receive U.S. aid, training and weapons unless the president issues full or partial waivers of those sanctions based on “national interest.” Trump and his predecessors have done this in the past for countries with close security ties to the United States.
> 
> “This is reprehensible,” U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a post on Twitter. “Is there no limit to what the Trump Admin is willing to do to cover for #SaudiArabia’s human rights abuses and violations of international norms?”
> 
> Sarah Margon, director of Human Right Watch’s Washington office, said: “This decision shows clearly that the Trump administration is using political manipulation and dismissing evidence – at the expense of kids – in order to protect Saudi Arabia.”
> 
> While internal debates over issues like child soldier violations often take place ahead of the release of the annual State Department list, this one was especially heated, several of the sources said.
> 
> Since the end of 2016, the Saudi-led coalition has deployed as many as 14,000 Sudanese at any given time, including children as young as 14, to fight in Yemen, offering payments of up to $10,000 per recruit, according to the New York Times. The article cited Sudanese fighters who had returned home and Sudanese lawmakers.
> 
> In Washington, the Yemen conflict is a contentious issue well beyond the State Department.
> 
> Republican and Democratic lawmakers, citing evidence of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in the 2018 killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi and angered by the civilian toll from the Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen, have ramped up efforts to block Trump’s multibillion-dollar arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Congressmen Tom Malinowski and Ted Lieu organized a letter to Pompeo from more than a dozen lawmakers in March that said they were “gravely concerned by credible reports” of the Saudi-led coalition deploying Sudanese child fighters in Yemen.
> 
> They called for a U.S. investigation, including into whether they had been armed with U.S.-made weapons, and also asked for an inquiry into “credible evidence of Houthi forces forcibly conscripting minors into combat...


"Saudi forces are using child soldiers."


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1141401544488824832
:heston


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Can Joe Biden seriously just fuck off already?
Actually on that same point, can Bernie Sanders also just fuck off?

I get the feeling for Bernie being some great insurgent in 2016 because it was basically only him standing in the way of Hillary (who I still don't get all the fucking hate for but whatever, you do you you mad bastards).

But in 2020 with so many other candidates running for the Democratic nomination... what exactly is it about Bernie that anyone is meant to think makes him so much uniquely better than any of the others? Because... he has nothing outside of "well he's an old white dude so obviously you should take him seriously" but... should we?

If you want a real progressive fighter you have Elizabeth Warren who's just kind of better in every way than Bernie is.

I mean in my dream world the next President of the United States would be Elizabeth Warren, with Pete Buttigieg as her Vice President.


----------



## Tater

Reservoir Angel said:


> If you want a real progressive fighter you have Elizabeth Warren who's just kind of better in every way than Bernie is.


A "real progressive fighter" who voted to increase Trump's military budget. Because what the USA needs is another bloodthirsty war monger as president who will do nothing to stop the USA's global reign of terror.

Hard pass.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1141532925193805826
:trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reservoir Angel said:


> Can Joe Biden seriously just fuck off already?
> Actually on that same point, can Bernie Sanders also just fuck off?
> 
> I get the feeling for Bernie being some great insurgent in 2016 because it was basically only him standing in the way of Hillary (who I still don't get all the fucking hate for but whatever, you do you you mad bastards).
> 
> But in 2020 with so many other candidates running for the Democratic nomination... what exactly is it about Bernie that anyone is meant to think makes him so much uniquely better than any of the others? Because... he has nothing outside of "well he's an old white dude so obviously you should take him seriously" but... should we?
> 
> If you want a real progressive fighter you have Elizabeth Warren who's just kind of better in every way than Bernie is.
> 
> I mean in my dream world the next President of the United States would be Elizabeth Warren, with Pete Buttigieg as her Vice President.


Because Bernie means what he says and has proven he does what he stands for for over 30 years unlike pretty much everyone else.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reservoir Angel said:


> Can Joe Biden seriously just fuck off already?
> Actually on that same point, can Bernie Sanders also just fuck off?
> 
> I get the feeling for Bernie being some great insurgent in 2016 because it was basically only him standing in the way of Hillary (who I still don't get all the fucking hate for but whatever, you do you you mad bastards).
> 
> But in 2020 with so many other candidates running for the Democratic nomination... what exactly is it about Bernie that anyone is meant to think makes him so much uniquely better than any of the others? Because... he has nothing outside of "well he's an old white dude so obviously you should take him seriously" but... should we?
> 
> If you want a real progressive fighter you have Elizabeth Warren who's just kind of better in every way than Bernie is.
> 
> I mean in my dream world the next President of the United States would be Elizabeth Warren, with Pete Buttigieg as her Vice President.


This is honestly one of the worst takes I've seen on the Democrat nominations, and there's a lot of shit out there. Congrats.

Pete fucking Booteyjudge...


----------



## DOPA

Fucking Elizabeth Warren as a true progressive warrior :HA.

Such a bad take.

Tulsi > Yang >>>>>>> Rest.


----------



## DesolationRow

Elizabeth Warren has never been a real anything in the political realm. She is, within such, a false entity parroting false positions. It only figures that the U.S. financial-political axis is lustfully behind her. Her continual declarations of fealty toward capitalism should warrant a distinct lack of love for her on the American left, but that is ostensibly not occurring. _The Economist_, _The New Yorker_ and other guardians of the present greatest players in high-finance displaying unmitigated enthusiasm on Warren's behalf is a telltale sign, with the latter in particular delineating just how stark the contrast between Warren and Bernie Sanders is in one of their more recent stories. 

Bess Levin at _Vanity Fair_ continued the neoliberal assault on Sanders, whose truth-telling on CNN was something which cannot go unpunished. Sanders's thoroughly level-headed assessment of the race in which he noted that many people want to see a woman be elected president evidently signifies his intolerance of Warren; as Levin put it, Sanders believes Warren is surging in the polls because she has ovaries. 

A rather humorous feedback loop, indeed. Help to engender the conditions by which a phenomenon takes place, and subsequently unleash withering fire toward anyone who possesses the temerity to diagnose said phenomenon's root causes. 

This is not to suggest that Sanders is some bastion of virtue. He is largely a politically intermittently-effective version of Eduard Bernstein, and it is rather clear that he is not enjoying the open field in which to make the "_souffle_ rise a second time," as Alice Roosevelt Longworth said in 1944 vis-a-vis Tom Dewey's prospects for being nominated once again in 1948 following his defeat to Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

It is just that Warren is a hollow shell, and at this point it would hardly be surprising to learn that she is being directly financed by an array of the greatest corporate donors merely to squeeze Sanders out. The Democratic Party donors recognize that without either a woman or a racial minority on the ticket they are doomed with the party's grassroots and vanguard, so having someone like Warren who feigns a number of positions to enjoy an uptick in popularity at Sanders's expense more than anyone else's is a considerable win/win, just in case she should emerge as the nominee. 

At least Kamala Harris is mostly open about being someone whose position in the race is determined by factors beyond her control such as race and gender, being simply another in the line of Bill Clinton/Barack Obama politics without them in terms of her positions. With "current year" software updates, of course, for Obama himself was opposed to homosexual marriage in 2012. 

Sanders, to some extent, has no one to blame but himself. His cowardice in the face of Black Lives Matter agitators (not the onstage altercation, the embarrassing aftermath) was a critical signpost that he could and would be rolled over. Bess Levin and the neoliberal rogues gallery of media enforcers know that they can happily grill Sanders for being insufficiently non-problematic, and he will meekly bend the knee. This is rather transparent, and being done by Democratic Party-friendly media auxiliaries so that ultimately the party's donor class is completely satisfied. For said donor class will be should Warren prove victorious. Which was what Warren was assuring the New England Council when she said, "I am a capitalist to my bones." In other words, she will cheerfully say the right things for younger Democratic voters, but she is something of a political "mole." Neoliberal writers are enforcing the rules of the game set forth by those calling themselves "progressives" (humorous labeling considering the disparate positions on numerous major issues such as immigration versus the "progressives" of a century ago, but the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been rendered more thoroughly near-useless today, so all is fair...) for their own ends. There has been an unsurprising elemental quality of the ouroboros while observing this spectacle.


----------



## CamillePunk

No need to be rude to Reservoir Angel for stating their political views when they weren't being rude to anyone here in doing so.  

Elizabeth Warren is an interesting case. Among my liberal and progressive friends, there are a few who consider themselves "progressive" but don't like Bernie Sanders. For them, Elizabeth Warren is their first choice, however always with the caveat of "But Kamala would work too...". :lol Should point out they are white and very much into social justice, which leads me to suspect (without certainty of course) that that is what is driving the view that Kamala would be a suitable substitute, since I don't think there's a ton of shared political ground between the two there relative to some of the other candidates. Based purely on these anecdotal interactions, I don't think Warren has much of a chance because those who are supporting her over Bernie are probably just as likely to accept a full-on neoliberal with the appropriate social justice credentials (read: not being a straight white male). Also Elizabeth Warren has that Hillary trait where just acting like a normal person seems to be an immense task for them. :lol So, pretty much exactly what forecasted months ago when I gave my forecast for the DNC primaries.  I think it'll be Kamala, unless the progressives can somehow defeat the DNC machine, in which case Bernie will win. Again, Trump beats Kamala in my view, whereas Bernie would be more of a challenge and will depend on just how much in-fighting goes on. Will the DNC machine truly accept Bernie Sanders as their nominee? Remains to be seen, and could be decisive.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

democrats are so terrified of losing the black vote they're promising fake reparations they have zero intention of ever carrying out, not to mention alienating a sizable group of voters to boot.

but of course they have their propaganda machine ready to go to work:






don't feel like watching? don't worry i''ll sum it up for you. "if you don't think this is a great idea, you're a an evil racist".

if they continue to play this up heading into the general election rest assured trump wins in 2020 with ease. (Y)


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> Elizabeth Warren has never been a real anything in the political realm. She is, within such, a false entity parroting false positions. It only figures that the U.S. financial-political axis is lustfully behind her. Her continual declarations of fealty toward capitalism should warrant a distinct lack of love for her on the American left, but that is ostensibly not occurring. _The Economist_, _The New Yorker_ and other guardians of the present greatest players in high-finance displaying unmitigated enthusiasm on Warren's behalf is a telltale sign, with the latter in particular delineating just how stark the contrast between Warren and Bernie Sanders is in one of their more recent stories.
> 
> Bess Levin at _Vanity Fair_ continued the neoliberal assault on Sanders, whose truth-telling on CNN was something which cannot go unpunished. Sanders's thoroughly level-headed assessment of the race in which he noted that many people want to see a woman be elected president evidently signifies his intolerance of Warren; as Levin put it, Sanders believes Warren is surging in the polls because she has ovaries.
> 
> A rather humorous feedback loop, indeed. Help to engender the conditions by which a phenomenon takes place, and subsequently unleash withering fire toward anyone who possesses the temerity to diagnose said phenomenon's root causes.
> 
> This is not to suggest that Sanders is some bastion of virtue. He is largely a politically intermittently-effective version of Eduard Bernstein, and it is rather clear that he is not enjoying the open field in which to make the "_souffle_ rise a second time," as Alice Roosevelt Longworth said in 1944 vis-a-vis Tom Dewey's prospects for being nominated once again in 1948 following his defeat to Franklin D. Roosevelt.
> 
> It is just that Warren is a hollow shell, and at this point it would hardly be surprising to learn that she is being directly financed by an array of the greatest corporate donors merely to squeeze Sanders out. The Democratic Party donors recognize that without either a woman or a racial minority on the ticket they are doomed with the party's grassroots and vanguard, so having someone like Warren who feigns a number of positions to enjoy an uptick in popularity at Sanders's expense more than anyone else's is a considerable win/win, just in case she should emerge as the nominee.
> 
> At least Kamala Harris is mostly open about being someone whose position in the race is determined by factors beyond her control such as race and gender, being simply another in the line of Bill Clinton/Barack Obama politics without them in terms of her positions. With "current year" software updates, of course, for Obama himself was opposed to homosexual marriage in 2012.
> 
> Sanders, to some extent, has no one to blame but himself. His cowardice in the face of Black Lives Matter agitators (not the onstage altercation, the embarrassing aftermath) was a critical signpost that he could and would be rolled over. Bess Levin and the neoliberal rogues gallery of media enforcers know that they can happily grill Sanders for being insufficiently non-problematic, and he will meekly bend the knee. This is rather transparent, and being done by Democratic Party-friendly media auxiliaries so that ultimately the party's donor class is completely satisfied. For said donor class will be should Warren prove victorious. Which was what Warren was assuring the New England Council when she said, "I am a capitalist to my bones." In other words, she will cheerfully say the right things for younger Democratic voters, but she is something of a political "mole." Neoliberal writers are enforcing the rules of the game set forth by those calling themselves "progressives" (humorous labeling considering the disparate positions on numerous major issues such as immigration versus the "progressives" of a century ago, but the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been rendered more thoroughly near-useless today, so all is fair...) for their own ends. There has been an unsurprising elemental quality of the ouroboros while observing this spectacle.


"Current year software updates" Oh dear, I laughed so hard when I read this. Liz has always been a sham candidate, she's as authentic as her Native American heritage and as in touch with Americans as she is with said heritage. 

What I find the most interesting and funny is that people are hellbent on voting for a non-white or female candidate. Yet fail to heed their own words on why things are as bad as they are because society only benefited those based on sex/race, yet this is how they're strictly voting. Lesson not learned!

Bernie could be perfect in every way yet his sex/race (I believe he's jewish but that's not a good thing to be in the DNC current year.) would be a factor against him. :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1141871762713579520
What a gal. 

Not that I support the Iran deal in particular, I just support any calls to deescalate the current situation, which feels a lot like neocons trying to get us into another war.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

To be honest my baseline excuse for any statement I make about US politis is that I'm British and therefore somewhat removed from the real nitty-gritty of US politics and thus absorb them mostly in broad strokes.

I mean my only real genuine feeling about 2020 is that my gay little heart will explode with joy if it ever sees Pete Buttigieg elected President of the United States but apparently it's "identity politics" to want a gay man to succeed because as a gay man it makes me happy to see that gay men can succeed at that level of prominence.


----------



## Draykorinee

I don't think there's any harm in supporting a candidate based on identity politics as long as there's other policy based reasons why he'd make a good person to vote for.


----------



## DOPA

Reservoir Angel said:


> To be honest my baseline excuse for any statement I make about US politis is that I'm British and therefore somewhat removed from the real nitty-gritty of US politics and thus absorb them mostly in broad strokes.
> 
> I mean my only real genuine feeling about 2020 is that my gay little heart will explode with joy if it ever sees Pete Buttigieg elected President of the United States but apparently it's "identity politics" to want a gay man to succeed because as a gay man it makes me happy to see that gay men can succeed at that level of prominence.


Not a problem to support a gay man as president as long as the reasons for supporting said person goes beyond the fact that he is gay.

Plenty of people supported Hillary for president solely on the basis that she was a woman and yet could not name any other good reason for her to be president other than experience.

Obama was not just elected because he was black, he was elected because the policies he was advocating represented a change from the status quo at the time, at least in terms of rhetoric. Hillary's whole campaign was based on keeping everything the same and "making history". It was the most narcissistic political campaign I've ever seen. 

That's the difference.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Deadhead said:


> Not a problem to support a gay man as president as long as the reasons for supporting said person goes beyond the fact that he is gay.
> 
> Plenty of people supported Hillary for president solely on the basis that she was a woman and yet could not name any other good reason for her to be president other than experience.
> 
> Obama was not just elected because he was black, he was elected because the policies he was advocating represented a change from the status quo at the time, at least in terms of rhetoric. *Hillary's whole campaign was based on keeping everything the same and "making history".* It was the most narcissistic political campaign I've ever seen.
> 
> That's the difference.


Not gonna lie him being gay was why I originally bothered to look into him but then I ended up really liking what I was seeing so it's gone beyond just hoping he does well because he's gay.

To switch the topic a bit: The bolded is why I think if Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee he's not going to win the election, because like Hillary he'll basically be campaigning for a 3rd Obama term... though admittedly without the "also I'd be the first female President" thing.

Honestly it's why I'm glad that thus far at least the primary campaigns of Warren, Harris, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Klobucher and Williamson don't seem to have made a big deal about the "I'd be the first female President" issue either. They've focused on campaign issues of substance first and just let it be the obvious unspoken thing without pointing a big neon sign to it every chance they get.

Hell even Pete Buttigieg isn't making him being potentially the first openly gay President a campaign issue, it's just a thing that is what it is and only ever seems to come up on the campaign trail when somebody else brings it up to him.

Maybe Democrats are starting to learn lessons from defeats at last... of course I still have total faith that they'll bollocks it up but still.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142129281289609216
:clap PJW


----------



## Reservoir Angel

I feel like even people who broadly agree with him ideologically, deep down know that Ben Shapiro is just a worthless piece of shit and hate him as a human being.


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142129281289609216
> :clap PJW


A pro-lifer being a hypocrite? Say it ain't so.


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> A pro-lifer being a hypocrite? Say it ain't so.


I will say I give Trump credit for not going to war (yet) even if he is being tricked into not going because he is so dumb.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142238772496621568
Just a brief window into the "alternate reality" of Fox News so we can hear Glenn Greenwald's take on the matter, since he is banned from the "prime reality" of CNN and MSNBC. 

I actually agree with the idea that "proportionate" shouldn't be the standard for military response. Like I've always said, if someone hits you, you should hit them back ten times harder. With that in mind, I think we ought to shoot down the next ten unmanned drones that Iran flies close to our country. 

Sorry peace doves, I won't be talked down from this position!


----------



## cewfa85

I'll bite, I guess....

I don't consider it a good day unless I've pissed off both a Republican and a Democrat. We need to provide cost effective healthcare so people don't go bankrupt because of cancer, but without raising taxes and in a way that is revenue neutral. The government needs to learn to balance its budget like the rest of us. We don't need another goddamned conflict in the Middle East. America either needs to do one of two things: Turn the Middle East into a parking lot or get out of there completely. Fuck Israel, Fuck Palestine, let them kill each other for all I care. Get your religion out of politics and my bedroom. Quit discriminating against LGBTQ people in jobs and housing and let them get married. Let people identify as the gender they wish (It's none of anyone's business). We need strong borders, but with compassion. End systematic racism (its 2019 not 1969) and making voting mandatory and a national holiday.

That sums up my political opinions. Like 'em or lump 'em.


----------



## birthday_massacre

cewfa85 said:


> I'll bite, I guess....
> 
> I don't consider it a good day unless I've pissed off both a Republican and a Democrat. We need to provide cost effective healthcare so people don't go bankrupt because of cancer, but without raising taxes and in a way that is revenue neutral. The government needs to learn to balance its budget like the rest of us. We don't need another goddamned conflict in the Middle East. America either needs to do one of two things: Turn the Middle East into a parking lot or get out of there completely. Fuck Israel, Fuck Palestine, let them kill each other for all I care. Get your religion out of politics and my bedroom. Quit discriminating against LGBTQ people in jobs and housing and let them get married. Let people identify as the gender they wish (It's none of anyone's business). We need strong borders, but with compassion. End systematic racism (its 2019 not 1969) and making voting mandatory and a national holiday.
> 
> That sums up my political opinions. Like 'em or lump 'em.


You think what you said would piss off a democrat? That is pretty much everything thay stand for.


----------



## Kabraxal

cewfa85 said:


> I'll bite, I guess....
> 
> I don't consider it a good day unless I've pissed off both a Republican and a Democrat. We need to provide cost effective healthcare so people don't go bankrupt because of cancer, but without raising taxes and in a way that is revenue neutral. The government needs to learn to balance its budget like the rest of us. We don't need another goddamned conflict in the Middle East. America either needs to do one of two things: Turn the Middle East into a parking lot or get out of there completely. Fuck Israel, Fuck Palestine, let them kill each other for all I care. Get your religion out of politics and my bedroom. Quit discriminating against LGBTQ people in jobs and housing and let them get married. Let people identify as the gender they wish (It's none of anyone's business). We need strong borders, but with compassion. End systematic racism (its 2019 not 1969) and *making voting mandatory* and a national holiday.
> 
> That sums up my political opinions. Like 'em or lump 'em.


So let's celebrate freedom by forcing people to vote... even if they don't like a single candidate. That's so nice of you.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

birthday_massacre said:


> You think what you said would piss off a democrat? That is pretty much everything thay stand for.


A "Democrat" or an actual leftist? "Dems" love them some Israel and Saudi war hawk circle jerks just as much as *the other* corporate, center-right party. 

Until the majority of voters figures out that both parties are not for conservative or progressive values, they are one in the same, and are only looking out for the corporate interests, maybe we can get some traction.

Interestingly enough, I think the majority of this country has progressive view points. Hell, Trump voters are more to the left on issues (No War) than Dem politicians. It's just that the voters on both sides are brainwash into their parties (it's why Dem voters demonize people like Bernie with the wack ass 'sexist' shit the party comes up with because they need to squash a progressive from ruining their military industrial complex party).

When this country doesn't have a 2 party corporate monopoly stranglehold on politics, then maybe we can have progress. Elections have, and will not fix the problem.


----------



## cewfa85

birthday_massacre said:


> You think what you said would piss off a democrat? That is pretty much everything thay stand for.


I'll admit, I enjoy pissing off Republicans/Conservatives more.


----------



## cewfa85

Kabraxal said:


> So let's celebrate freedom by forcing people to vote... even if they don't like a single candidate. That's so nice of you.


You could always not vote and pay a $25 ticket. That's what would happen if I were in charge. Here is the thing people don't take into consideration, but along with your rights you also have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to vote. If you don't like a candidate, write someone in (that would be an option in every state if I were in charge and it would be counted). Hell, for all I care, draw a cock and balls. Just vote. It's your civic duty.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

The only way to make voting mandatory is if you had more than just 2 legit candidates on the ballot, and at least one that isn't some corporate whore. Not write ins. I'm talking on the ballot choices. Right now you're picking which color dip shit you want to take us to war for Saudi gain. Red or Blue imperialist? Oh boy! But the only difference is 1 is for birth control and the other the right to shoot themselves in the foot!


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142242188883046407
Rough day for Mayor Pete. :sad:


----------



## Kabraxal

cewfa85 said:


> You could always not vote and pay a $25 ticket. That's what would happen if I were in charge. Here is the thing people don't take into consideration, but along with your rights you also have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to vote. If you don't like a candidate, write someone in (that would be an option in every state if I were in charge and it would be counted). Hell, for all I care, draw a cock and balls. Just vote. It's your civic duty.


Fuck civic duty. Nice words for “do what I want”. 2020 will be my first election I refuse to vote. Fuck all of those douchebags running.


----------



## Draykorinee

CP needs to stop writing stuff I wholly agree with, even managing to do it with human-alien hybrid PJW as well. Times they are a changing.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142095561614606336

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142107691671859200
Woo free college and healthcare for illegal immigrants. :hb Not only will we not have a country but we'll all have to pay for the education and healthcare of our invaders. Vote Bernie 2020!!! :nerd:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

fukkin bernie :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142095561614606336
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142107691671859200
> Woo free college and healthcare for illegal immigrants. :hb Not only will we not have a country but we'll all have to pay for the education and healthcare of our invaders. Vote Bernie 2020!!! :nerd:


Give them the right to Vote too!

At this point, what good is it even being a Citizen? Well except to pay taxes to pay for people who aren't Citizens. Awesome. :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

Ughhhhhhhhh Bernie, why the fuck you gotta do this shit.


----------



## virus21

Well, at least if Bernie got in and our economy collapses (which is most likely would), we know who to blame.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1141759740944535552
How are people this uninformed about EVERYTHING. :lol :done

(I know how, corporate media is a disinformation campaign)


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Ughhhhhhhhh Bernie, why the fuck you gotta do this shit.


Honestly I'm surprised, he was talking about securing the borders not to long ago. He's always been pretty Pro-American even if I don't agree with some of the policies. This stance is completely Anti-American.




virus21 said:


> Well, at least if Bernie got in and our economy collapses (which is most likely would), we know who to blame.


Health Care would collapse with it. There's already a Nursing/Doctor shortage in the US. Medical Staff shortages are something that's been going on a while because it's hard not so fun work. People think Nursing Home care is lacking and scary? Imagine that being across the US with most US Hospitals. 

There's already millions of Americans living in poverty, we don't need millions more non-citizens added to an already failing and taxed system.


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1141759740944535552
> How are people this uninformed about EVERYTHING. :lol :done
> 
> (I know how, corporate media is a disinformation campaign)


What is she an expert at? Oh yes, leaving countries bombed all to hell.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Imagine how morally bankrupt you have to be to support denying healthcare to human beings simply because they're "not American". Undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars in federal, state, and local taxes each year, including paying for benefits they'll never be able to access like Social Security. And they'd be contributing to Medicare for All as well. 

God forbid we treat them with a bit of compassion and let them benefit from something they're paying for for once. We don't owe them anything, amirite?  It's not like imperialist America hasn't spent decades overthrowing their democracies and crippling their economies through sanctions and regime change wars, driving them to flee their homelands for a chance at a better life... oh wait. 

But compassion doesn't exist in the conservative ideology. Only greed and fear. The spooky invaders are here to take our jobs and our "freedom", and if we gotta lock pregnant teenagers up in dirt-floored cages and let toddlers die of easily preventable diseases to stop them from doing so, then by god we're going to do it!


----------



## CamillePunk

So in other words, no, we don't get to have a country, because that would not be compassionate. :lauren


----------



## Miss Sally

DaRealNugget said:


> Imagine how morally bankrupt you have to be to support denying healthcare to human beings simply because they're "not American". Undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars in federal, state, and local taxes each year, including paying for benefits they'll never be able to access like Social Security. And they'd be contributing to Medicare for All as well.
> 
> God forbid we treat them with a bit of compassion and let them benefit from something they're paying for for once. We don't owe them anything, amirite?  It's not like imperialist America hasn't spent decades overthrowing their democracies and crippling their economies through sanctions and regime change wars, driving them to flee their homelands for a chance at a better life... oh wait.
> 
> But compassion doesn't exist in the conservative ideology. Only greed and fear. The spooky invaders are here to take our jobs and our "freedom", and if we gotta lock pregnant teenagers up in dirt-floored cages and let toddlers die of easily preventable diseases to stop them from doing so, then by god we're going to do it!


I don't know where you been but Social Security is dead, most people won't be seeing it. 

As for contributing "ZILLIONS", that's debatable at best. Let's look at what jobs these people get, it's minimum wage jobs if they use a fake identity, if they steal someone's identity, well they just fucked over someone's life in a major way. Identity theft isn't fun to deal with and it fucks up your taxes and what kind of life you can have. So already this isn't contributing much, if they're smart they'll go tax exempt anyways since by the time the IRS figures it out, they can move onto the next identity or job. 

Many get paid under the table, that means no taxable income, many especially in some laxed states can get Government benefits, including WIC, housing, free education among other benefits which cost taxes payers money while they pay nothing.

Illegals are not a benefit in any shape or form unless we're talking about mega corporations which avoid taxes and paying any sort of real wage if they hired Citizens or at least Green Carded workers. It's also a benefit to scummy "charities" and businesses which file false income taxes for these people, while making a nice profit. It's a benefit to Western Union and the banks who make fees off people transferring money. Did you know that banks were giving out housing loans and credit cards to illegals? They had no way to pay it back but it's okay, the banks write it all off. 

The compassion I have is for our own Citizens who cannot afford food, work themselves to the bone but cannot qualify for Government aid, the people who send their kids to overcrowded schools.

Do I feel bad for people who've had their country fucked with by the US? Yes but the US should be sending aide to those countries, not bankrupting itself in some misguided attempt at faux morality that only benefits our corporate overlords. We have our own problems to deal with, we don't need millions more. If you want to pay for all this by all means, sign your check over to the Government, don't include me in your moral crusade.


----------



## CamillePunk

Nah their countries shouldn't get foreign aid either. Plenty of our own folks to take care of.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Miss Sally said:


> I don't know where you been but Social Security is dead, most people won't be seeing it.
> 
> As for contributing "ZILLIONS", that's debatable at best. Let's look at what jobs these people get, it's minimum wage jobs if they use a fake identity, if they steal someone's identity, well they just fucked over someone's life in a major way. Identity theft isn't fun to deal with and it fucks up your taxes and what kind of life you can have. So already this isn't contributing much, if they're smart they'll go tax exempt anyways since by the time the IRS figures it out, they can move onto the next identity or job.
> 
> Many get paid under the table, that means no taxable income, many especially in some laxed states can get Government benefits, including WIC, housing, free education among other benefits which cost taxes payers money while they pay nothing.
> 
> Illegals are not a benefit in any shape or form unless we're talking about mega corporations which avoid taxes and paying any sort of real wage if they hired Citizens or at least Green Carded workers. It's also a benefit to scummy "charities" and businesses which file false income taxes for these people, while making a nice profit. It's a benefit to Western Union and the banks who make fees off people transferring money. Did you know that banks were giving out housing loans and credit cards to illegals? They had no way to pay it back but it's okay, the banks write it all off.


You're wrong. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/immigrants-arent-taking-americans-jobs-new-study-finds.html

https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/28/undocumented-immigrants-quietly-pay-billions-social-security-and-receive-no/

https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/ITEP-2017-Undocumented-Immigrants-State-and-Local-Contributions.pdf

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/1/18241692/undocumented-immigrants-pay-state-local-taxes

Undocumented immigrants contribute more to the US economy and government than they take. This does not excuse things like identity theft, but overall, the US benefits from the undocumented.



> The compassion I have is for our own Citizens who cannot afford food, work themselves to the bone but cannot qualify for Government aid, the people who send their kids to overcrowded schools.
> 
> Do I feel bad for people who've had their country fucked with by the US? Yes but the US should be sending aide to those countries, not bankrupting itself in some misguided attempt at faux morality that only benefits our corporate overlords. We have our own problems to deal with, we don't need millions more. If you want to pay for all this by all means, sign your check over to the Government, don't include me in your moral crusade.


Medicare for All, including undocumented immigrants, isn't going to bankrupt the US. Take that fearmongering somewhere else.

Taxpayers already foot the bill for undocumented immigrants who are sick. We simply wait until they make it to the ER and are unable to pay, which costs taxpayers much more than if those same immigrants had access to preventative care to get themselves help before their issues became an emergency. Keep in mind, undocumented workers payed $13 billion into Social Security and $3 billion into Medicare in 2016. This idea that simply citizens would be paying for their healthcare is false. They'd be contributing to Medicare for All themselves.

Some of us are capable of having compassion for both working class citizens and demonized immigrants. After all, they are both victims of their mutual oppressors, the bourgeoisie corporate class. I simply don't favor one over the other because of an invisible arbitrary line. I believe healthcare is a _human_ right. Not an American one. 

If not wanting children and single mothers and working fathers to die from easily preventable diseases and disabilities makes me some "moral crusader" then so be it. Personally though, I prefer to call it having a conscious.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> Nah their countries shouldn't get foreign aid either. Plenty of our own folks to take care of.


Except your brand of politics doesn't believe in government aid to anyone so your stance on ending foreign aid simply means that those who already have too much money get to keep their money even more and doesn't improve things for anyone at home - unless you say that the foreign aid going out needs to be retained for local social welfare programs - but then that'll make your brain erupt because you don't want social welfare programs.


----------



## Miss Sally

DaRealNugget said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/immigrants-arent-taking-americans-jobs-new-study-finds.html
> 
> https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/28/undocumented-immigrants-quietly-pay-billions-social-security-and-receive-no/
> 
> https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/ITEP-2017-Undocumented-Immigrants-State-and-Local-Contributions.pdf
> 
> https://www.vox.com/2019/3/1/18241692/undocumented-immigrants-pay-state-local-taxes
> 
> Undocumented immigrants contribute more to the US economy and government than they take. This does not excuse things like identity theft, but overall, the US benefits from the undocumented.
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare for All, including undocumented immigrants, isn't going to bankrupt the US. Take that fearmongering somewhere else.
> 
> Taxpayers already foot the bill for undocumented immigrants who are sick. We simply wait until they make it to the ER and are unable to pay, which costs taxpayers much more than if those same immigrants had access to preventative care to get themselves help before their issues became an emergency. Keep in mind, undocumented workers payed $13 billion into Social Security and $3 billion into Medicare in 2016. This idea that simply citizens would be paying for their healthcare is false. They'd be contributing to Medicare for All themselves.
> 
> Some of us are capable of having compassion for both working class citizens and demonized immigrants. After all, they are both victims of their mutual oppressors, the bourgeoisie corporate class. I simply don't favor one over the other because of an invisible arbitrary line. I believe healthcare is a _human_ right. Not an American one.
> 
> If not wanting children and single mothers and working fathers to die from easily preventable diseases and disabilities makes me some "moral crusader" then so be it. Personally though, I prefer to call it having a conscious.


I'm still not seeing (Unless I missed it) where it counts the unclaimed wages (Money under the table) as taxes, that money does not get taxed, unless we're talking the paltry sales tax that States charge on goods. This also doesn't seem to be counting those who still file illegally to get tax refunds, again working a minimum wage job barely contributes to taxes. This only counts the working ones, what about all those that do not have a job?

These articles never count all that, it generalizes a sum and by that logic the Cartels are adding to Social Security and Taxes by buying up properties and laundering money. So they're a plus too! 

If we're counting Government aid, schooling, sending money back to their home countries, unclaimed income, cost for housing prisoners, Health Care and every little thing that the Government nickle and dimes it's Citizens over, their contribution is doubtful to cover the cost. If this is accurate than minimum wage is a livable income. Of course people make up excuses why Amazon not paying taxes is great, and America needs it's slave labor so it's win/win.

Social Security is a scam, you will not see it, I will not see it. Paying into is pointless. 

There are already free clinics all over the place, it's been stated over and over that Health Care needs a reform. There's still a shortage of medical personal needed, trust me I know because it's my field. The question becomes how does one reform Health Care without reducing the quality of care and to absorb the great number of people who need it? Tossing money at the issue and saying "FREE" isn't going to solve this issue. 

"Conscious" is a nice way of not looking at the problem or future logically, "compassion, love, understanding", these are all the words the Religious use to justify their lack of foresight into a future that's certainly coming. Bernie was all about securing the borders but now this is a hot issue, here's his take, bravo!

How do you propose to take care of a perpetually growing Welfare State with open borders? A Nation that has no qualms about fucking over it's own Citizens and moving jobs over seas? A Nation that allows slave labor because "Americans don't want dos dere jerbs! Let the Messicans do it, they work for pennies!" A Nation that tosses money at Education with no real results? A Nation on the cusp of Automation because the thought of paying workers minimum wage DARES dip into the profit margin. How is this going to be fixed? Because it all ties in together. Well the US does need a a serf class after all.

I really hope the US goes full on into Socialism, so we can hear how it's not real Socialism when it fails. (No I don't think Bernie is a Socialist but people seem to think this ideology that's never worked is the solution.) The US soviet unioning itself would be the best thing for World security. People who actually pay taxes whining would be fun too and I mean not a tiny fraction of a sum of someone making 20k a year. (That's even if they pay with that small amount!) :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142824856809037824
Despite saying several times in the past that he doesn't support open borders, Bernie is now saying that we should not deport or prosecute in any way illegal immigrants who don't show up for court. 

If you don't do anything about people swarming into your country and ignoring your laws, how the hell do you have borders? How do you have a country? You don't. This is asinine cuckery, which is to say this is Bernie Sanders. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142824856809037824
> Despite saying several times in the past that he doesn't support open borders, Bernie is now saying that we should not deport or prosecute in any way illegal immigrants who don't show up for court.
> 
> If you don't do anything about people swarming into your country and ignoring your laws, how the hell do you have borders? How do you have a country? You don't. This is asinine cuckery, which is to say this is Bernie Sanders. :lol


Bernie flip flopping on stuff is pretty funny. It's all a song and dance because the other Democrat candidates are catching up in polling I'm sure, he'll say and do anything now. Wonder what else he'll be saying by 2020?

Also I like his stance, don't need to follow laws if you're X. We need more special stuff like that.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Miss Sally said:


> Bernie flip flopping on stuff is pretty funny. It's all a song and dance because the other Democrat candidates are catching up in polling I'm sure, he'll say and do anything now. Wonder what else he'll be saying by 2020?


I just like to throw it in the face of the hardcore Bernie fans who seem to believe he's some infallible messiah that's never ever made any contradictory statements or flip-flopped ever.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reservoir Angel said:


> I just like to throw it in the face of the hardcore Bernie fans who seem to believe he's some infallible messiah that's never ever made any contradictory statements or flip-flopped ever.


But he is! He the white man cometh to right wrongs and bring justice to the world! The Prince of Peace and the Lord of Light and all that good stuff!

Bernie fans seem to be as hardcore about him as Trump fans are about Trump, neither can do wrong in their eyes.. In a contest of absolute devotion.. who would win? :hmmm


----------



## Draykorinee

Bernie is starting to frustrate occasionally that's for sure, we all know the odd flip flop won't hurt though, Trump has continuously done so and people still rave about him on the right.


----------



## Stephen90

The fall of Ben Shapiro continues even his own fans are turning on him.


----------



## Miss Sally

"Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that."


----------



## Crona

Stephen90 said:


> The fall of Ben Shapiro continues even his own fans are turning on him.


People are finally seeing Shapiro for what he has always been. I've never understood his popularity tbh.


----------



## CamillePunk




----------



## Stephen90

Crona said:


> People are finally seeing Shapiro for what he has always been. I've never understood his popularity tbh.


 He's been debating with 18 and 19 year old college kids because he knows he can bully and intimidate them. That fooled a lot of people into liking him and thinking he was some type of genius.


----------



## Maffchew

Stephen90 said:


> He's been debating with 18 and 19 year old college kids because he knows he can bully and intimidate them. That fooled a lot of people into liking him and thinking he was some type of genius.


This. He made his fame on the stupidity of kids who haven't yet learned to form a proper opinion, or are too young to know better. Every time I've seen him in an adult debate he has made himself look like an idiot.


----------



## Crona

Stephen90 said:


> He's been debating with 18 and 19 year old college kids because he knows he can bully and intimidate them. That fooled a lot of people into liking him and thinking he was some type of genius.


Yeah, I've seen some Q&A clips from his talks at universities and he's just the worst. Like, arrogant for no reason, not willing to actually engage with his audience in anything that is not licking his ass. Sure, he talks fast, but he's very dumb. Silly little troll man.


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


>


If he keeps us out of Iran I am going to have to almost like him in a genuine way.

He being Tucker Carlson of course savior of mankind.

In a totally serious way now, I think the most surprising thing about this entire thing is that the New York Times published that story.


----------



## deepelemblues

Getting called a Nazi by Google _gleichschaltung_ department commissars doesn't really make Benjy Shapiro look bad

His main problem is that he fell into the infotainment trap; the :vince$ comes from rhetorical gymkata! 

So his energy and talents fall into the dissolving maw of Mammon

Maybe they wouldn't have been enough to raise him to more rarefied air anyway, but it is the uncommon entertainer who reaches those heights

Considering the environment facing anyone, student or faculty, to the right of Barack Obama on most campuses, having a Benjy Shapiro come in and give such people a bit of heart by owning the moonbats is a sign of a civil society that is still functioning. Mostly

Benjy is no Tuck, though

Tuck is one of the singular men who has broken through 

The Uncuckable one has the ear of the President of the United States on policy decisions of the highest consequence

That trumps dunking on sloppily indoctrinated quasi-Red Guard at college auditoriums

(I plead the fif to the pun police)


----------



## CamillePunk

Pretty good write-up of the 2020 candidates and some of their positions by John Stossel over at Reason, which I read less and less these days but Stossel is always worth reading.  



> https://reason.com/2019/06/26/the-depressing-state-of-the-2020-presidential-race/
> 
> *The Depressing State of the 2020 Presidential Race*
> 
> Lots of bad ideas from both sides of the political aisle.
> 
> JOHN STOSSEL | 6.26.2019 1:01 AM
> 
> So many people want to be president. Unfortunately, many have terrible ideas.
> 
> Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) wants companies to prove they pay men and women equally. "Penalties if they don't!" she says. But there are lots of reasons, other than sexism, why companies pay some men more than women.
> 
> Harris also wants government to "hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms." But "holding them accountable" means censorship. If politicians get to censor media, they'll censor anyone who criticizes them.
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) wants the post office to offer banking services. The post office? It already loses billions of dollars despite its monopoly on delivering mail. Sanders also wants to increase our national debt by forgiving $1.6 trillion in student loan debt.
> 
> He wants to ban for-profit charter schools and freeze funding for nonprofit charters. That's great news for some government-school bureaucrats and teachers unions that don't want to compete but bad news for kids who flourish in charters when government schools fail.
> 
> Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) once sounded better about charters, saying, "When people tell me they're against school choice…or charter schools, I say, 'As soon as you're willing to send your kid to a failing school in my city…then I'll be with you.'"
> 
> Unfortunately, now that Booker is a presidential candidate, he says little about school choice. He also wants government to guarantee people's jobs and to pay more Americans' rent.
> 
> Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) wants to force everyone to buy fertility treatment insurance.
> 
> Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) wants to impose a wealth tax on very rich people. That would certainly benefit accountants and tax lawyers while inspiring rich people to hide more assets instead of putting them to work.
> 
> Warren also wants to ban all oil and gas drilling on federal land, have government decide who sits on corporate boards and make college free.
> 
> The Democrat who leads the betting odds, former Vice President Joe Biden, also says, "College should be free!"
> 
> Free? Colleges have already jacked up their prices much faster than inflation because taxpayers subsidize too much of college. Biden and Warren would make that problem worse.
> 
> The Republican incumbent has bad ideas, too: President Donald Trump imposes tariffs that are really new taxes that American consumers must pay. Trump says tariffs are needed because our "trade deficit in goods with the world last year was nearly $800 billion dollars. (That means) we lost $800 billion!"
> 
> But it doesn't mean that, Mr. President. A "trade deficit" just means foreigners sent us $800 billion more goods than we sent them.
> 
> We got their products, and in return they only got American currency, which they'll end up investing in the U.S. That's good for us. It's not a problem.
> 
> Luckily, the president has good ideas, too. He says he wants to shrink the code of federal regulations back to its 1960 size. It would be great if he actually did it. Trump slowing the growth of regulation is one of the best parts of his presidency.
> 
> Some Democratic candidates have sensible ideas, too.
> 
> Cory Booker proposed legalizing marijuana.
> 
> Mayor Pete Buttigieg criticizes his opponents for their "college for all" freebie, saying, "I have a hard time getting my head around the idea that a majority who earn less because they didn't go to college would subsidize a minority who earn more."
> 
> And all candidates could learn from Hawaii's Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D), who served in Iraq.
> 
> "I know the cost of war!" she says. "I will end the regime change wars—taking the money that we've been wasting on these wars and weapons and investing it in serving the needs of our people."
> 
> Sadly, she wouldn't give that money back to the people. She'd spend it on other big government programs.
> 
> Politicians always have ideas other than letting you keep your money.
> 
> I bet we'll hear other bad ideas this week when 20 of the Democratic candidates debate.


Looking forward to the debates tonight. Expect to see a lot of out-promising one another on who will give the most "free stuff", as well as repeatedly saying how "anyone would be better than the x-cist x-phobic president we have now!". :lol 

Will be watching mostly for entertainment, as well as a genuine interest in seeing how Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang do, as I don't find either of them wholly objectionable, despite their many flaws.


----------



## Miss Sally

How is Bernie going to one up her? :hmmm


----------



## yeahbaby!

Such a funny setup. 

You have different candidates from the same party beating the crap out of each other, in some ways to the overall party's detriment, then the losers have to turn around and eat humble pie, endorsing the winner.

Is the US the only place that has this kind of thing?


----------



## Dr. Middy

I'm just curious how Tulsi Gabbard does. 

Could give two shits about the majority of the rest of them.


----------



## MrMister

:heston massive technical meltdown for MSNBC


----------



## deepelemblues

If you don't listen to the BBC World Service you're missing out

Just wanted to say that Alan Kasujja and Tom Hagler etc. are my boys

Wait a minute people are actually watching this dog and pony show? :bearer

Primary debates are the lowest form of American politics :tripsscust


----------



## ShiningStar

Tim Ryan is the living manifestation of white bro-liberals who keep saying "let's ignore identity politics and focus on poor white people. Glad to see that NeoLiberal Hawk get taken down by Tulsi


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

chuck todd asks who's the greatest geopolitical threat to the U.S. and of course in true autistic fashion at least half the field says 'climate change'

:lol


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1144075500857569280
Tulsi :drose


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Tulsi ate the fucker. 

Funny how they tried to shut her out for that middle section (had to be about an hour of just total silence on her end), and only came back to her with a smear question about her father's views. Establishment doesn't want comments on national TV like the one she slipped out about Saudi Arabia protecting al-Qaeda.



Miss Sally said:


> How is Bernie going to one up her? :hmmm


Easy. The establishment is making it clear that they know Biden isn't beating Bernie. Just like they did Harris and Beta, they drop them and move to the next. 

There is 1 thing the Democratic party doesn't want. Even above Trump re-election, and that is Bernie, an actual left leaning politician, being the leader of the fake-left party. Even if it means the party getting behind Warren.

Now you see these establishment polls saying Warren is taking the lead, and more focus from the media on her. Really? Interesting. Seems like the establishment has moved on from Biden, and going to their last resort to stop Bernie, and that is to get behind Warren. 

I believe Warren will lose progressive voters due to the establishment all falling in line behind her. So I don't think Bernie is in trouble here. 

This is just going to be another 2016. 'Sexist' Bernie vs the woman who the establishment deems the best chance to beat Trump. "Fuck policies when we can smash our enemies with identity politics!" - Corporate Dems and their voters.


I just hope Tulsi stays in long enough to combat Warren's base (a lot of establishment Dem voters hate Tulsi, they watch too much The View), and to make a strong case for Bernie's VP.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tulsi is getting hammered by the MSM and by Twitter, along with Establishment Dems.

You got a smart woman who's pretty balanced on her views, who can work with the opposition and yet the DNC rejects her?

Go figure the best Candidate is a woman but not the woman THEY want.

They're going to smear her so bad.

Biden along with Warren is their choices, Bernie is looking good but who knows what silly stuff he'll say in the meantime.

Warren is an odd choice to get behind after the Native American thing blew up in her face, we're still hearing about "Two Scoops" and Tulsi's Papa but not about that debacle.

The MSM was further making me laugh because they said there wasn't enough Trump attacks, not sure that kinda stuff is going to help. 

All I know is that this is going to be fun!

Oh forgot to add, members of the Pro-Israel lobby don't want Tulsi and have stated they'll work against her. Russia has taken over our Gobbernment! Meanwhile lobbyists from foreign powers are meddling with the election process openly.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Oh tonight will be the Trump questions, as Biden has nothing to offer. Bernie will keep trying to squeeze in actual policies and Harris will copy his every move trying to look progressive.


----------



## Freelancer

I'm believing more and more that the worst enemy of the Democrats isn't Trump, it's themselves.


----------



## virus21

Freelancer said:


> I'm believing more and more that the worst enemy of the Democrats isn't Trump, it's themselves.


Been that way for a while


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Miss Sally said:


> Tulsi is getting hammered by the MSM and by Twitter, along with Establishment Dems.
> 
> You got a smart woman who's pretty balanced on her views, who can work with the opposition and yet the DNC rejects her?
> 
> Go figure the best Candidate is a woman but not the woman THEY want.
> 
> They're going to smear her so bad.


she's the holy cow of progressives, a non-white female. just play the racist/sexist card and call it a day. 

in a field of all democrats it's a near unbeatable maneuver. they don't have a defense for it.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1144069335352315905
^ i'm fairly certain that if someone white made this _exact_ joke featuring three black people and switched out mayo with (insert stereotypical black food/drink item).. they would be banned from twitter for hate speech.


----------



## MrMister

Beto really is terrible. He was the worst one up there and Tim Ryan was there too so that's pretty terrible.

I think I might even prefer Ted Cruz over Beto at this point, that's how much Beto annoys me.


----------



## Draykorinee

Beto is just a terrible candidate, full of empty platitudes.


----------



## Miss Sally

Beta is phony that's why. 

He's manufactured from the get go, including his name. 

He makes us all uncomfortable.

I'm still laughing about Tulsi, be a non-white woman, be anti-war, be willing to listen to both sides, be pro-American, be against bad foreign policy.. SHE'S A MONSTER!


----------



## MrMister

Miss Sally said:


> Beta is phony that's why.
> 
> He's manufactured from the get go, including his name.
> 
> He makes us all uncomfortable.
> 
> I'm still laughing about Tulsi, be a non-white woman, be anti-war, be willing to listen to both sides, be pro-American, be against bad foreign policy.. SHE'S A MONSTER!


Is this the Assad thing? I was under the impression that no one really knew much about her. 

I did hear/read things about how she didn't answer the equal pay question...well fucking duh, it's her first time in the limelight and she's got to establish who she is.

Oh and I also enjoyed her ending Tim Ryan's presidential run.

@Miss Sally thoughts on Beto gratuitously speaking Spanish.


----------



## ShiningStar

Freelancer said:


> I'm believing more and more that the worst enemy of the Democrats isn't Trump, it's themselves.


Seriously

Other then DeBlasio or something of all the 87 people running Elizabeth Warren is probably the worst possible choice to run against Trump if the goal is to actually win in 2020. And so many of the twittersphere and media are fantarding and pushing her to be the nom.


----------



## birthday_massacre

ShiningStar said:


> Seriously
> 
> Other then DeBlasio or something of all the 87 people running Elizabeth Warren is probably the worst possible choice to run against Trump if the goal is to actually win in 2020. And so many of the twittersphere and media are fantarding and pushing her to be the nom.


Why is that ? Do tell


----------



## El Grappleador

I've read the results about cruiserweight Candidates and.... Mmmmh... They forget the important catchphrase: "United We Stand. Divided We fall." And frankly, anyone of those candidates has concrete ideas. Moreover, before his show, Bernie Sanders tweeted about Free Universities. You know where I've heard this before? On mexican political. And let's be real: education is not free, never was and never will be. 

That's why I do not put my trust on politicians.


----------



## DOPA

Tulsi absolutely destroyed that fool Tim Ryan. Like, decimated him :lol.

Tulsi being the most searched candidate after the debate and winning many of the snap polls :banderas.

She's the only candidate from both parties that I will openly support in a head to head presidential race.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

let's be real she was the most searched candidate because bruhs wanted more pics. (Y)


----------



## DesolationRow

:lol :lol


----------



## BulletClubFangirl

Me waiting for Andrew Yang to say something. Well minus the high expectations I guess.


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> Is this the Assad thing? I was under the impression that no one really knew much about her.
> 
> I did hear/read things about how she didn't answer the equal pay question...well fucking duh, it's her first time in the limelight and she's got to establish who she is.
> 
> Oh and I also enjoyed her ending Tim Ryan's presidential run.
> 
> @Miss Sally thoughts on Beto gratuitously speaking Spanish.


The equal pay question was a trap. 

I was annoyed, Beto is a purely manufactured candidate to try and bring in Latino voters. The whole speaking Spanish is completely disingenuous. How people do not see through this guy is a mystery to me. :laugh:










Tulsi is in league with the Hacker known as 4chan, Pepe the frog is Tulsi's Bannon.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Fake progressive Kamala just ended Biden's campaign.

Establishment's boner for Harris is back.

Bernie getting the dumbest questions, obviously. Him and Tulsi are the villains of these networks.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://apnews.com/180e25985cf64cef94d06f7d92a644e7



> *Supreme Court rules federal courts have no role in policing partisan gerrymandering.*
> 
> The Supreme Court says federal courts have no role to play in policing political districts drawn for partisan gain. The decision could embolden political line-drawing for partisan gain when state lawmakers undertake the next round of redistricting following the 2020 census.
> 
> The justices said by a 5-4 vote Thursday that claims of partisan gerrymandering do not belong in federal court. The court’s conservative, Republican-appointed majority says that voters and elected officials should be the arbiters of what is a political dispute.
> 
> The court rejected challenges to Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina and a Democratic district in Maryland.


----------



## kingnoth1n

TheLooseCanon said:


> Fake progressive Kamala just ended Biden's campaign.
> 
> Establishment's boner for Harris is back.
> 
> Bernie getting the dumbest questions, obviously. Him and Tulsi are the villains of these networks.


I like when Biden gets torched or called out on his BS he gets that super obvious shit eating grin.

Also, for all the talk about this Yang guy, he sure comes off as an uncharismatic stuttering inferior on that stage, but id party with Marianne Williamson and fly the Iranian airlines with her anytime.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

kingnoth1n said:


> I like when Biden gets torched or called out on his BS he gets that super obvious shit eating grin.
> 
> Also, for all the talk about this Yang guy, he sure comes off as an uncharismatic stuttering inferior on that stage, but id party with Marianne Williamson and fly the Iranian airlines with her anytime.


Yang has been done for a while. Jimmy Dore wrecked him to his face on Youtube.


----------



## DesolationRow

A friend of Far-East Asian ancestry puts it well on occasion: "We don't _all_ have low verbal IQ, y'know." Andrew Yang fits the stereotypes of a well-meaning Asian technocrat who seems as warm as that bottle of Coca-Cola being peddled in those summertime advertisements. 

Kamala Harris remains the "number one pick." That was never changing, even with Elizabeth Warren's recent surge in polling. 

Joe Biden is more of a fallback possibility. He is an older but cagier Democratic Marco Rubio, as it were, to make a 2016 comparison. 

But Harris has been groomed for this run since before her 2012 Democratic National Convention speech, as Barack Obama was with his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, and Bill Clinton was with his 1988 Democratic National Convention speech. Harris has a complicated, Bardi Family-worthy history with banks. While the negotiated settlement of $25 billion for foreclosed households as California attorney general is superficially impressive, ultimately the banks only had to pay $5 billion of that amount, and much anger mounted among California homeowners who were unable to meet with or find out anything about possible prosecutions of highly-likely purveyors of banking malfeasance such as OneWest Bank's CEO-at-the-time Steve Mnuchin, as evidenced by the many protests at the 2015 convention in Anaheim. For the overwhelming majority of voters who only know or care so much, Harris threads several significant needles. She also possesses a degree of verbal intelligence that is difficult to dismiss, and largely plays well on television.


----------



## kingnoth1n

TheLooseCanon said:


> Yang has been done for a while. Jimmy Dore wrecked him to his face on Youtube.


yeah, as aside though, Trumps social media team is so smart. Posting stuff like this mid-debate, and his teams high level trolling last night.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

And don't forget putting her celebrity buddy up to fake a lynching so she can pass a bill nobody fucking cared about for 50 years. A bill she needed to push her identity politics. Those identity politics she smeared Biden with tonight.

Also, didn't Clinton's crew shifted focus to her as soon as Hill-dog lost in '16? I've always been afraid of Kamala the most in these establishment pushes to try to screw Bernie, I was just hoping they actually dropped her for Biden, because BidenLOL.


----------



## kingnoth1n

DesolationRow said:


> Kamala Harris remains the "number one pick." That was never changing, even with Elizabeth Warren's recent surge in polling.
> 
> Joe Biden is more of a fallback possibility. He is an older but cagier Democratic Marco Rubio, as it were, to make a 2016 comparison.
> 
> But Harris has been groomed for this run since before her 2012 Democratic National Convention speech, as Barack Obama was with his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, and Bill Clinton was with his 1988 Democratic National Convention speech. Harris has a complicated, Bardi Family-worthy history with banks. While the negotiated settlement of $25 billion for foreclosed households as California attorney general is superficially impressive, ultimately the banks only had to pay $5 billion of that amount, and much anger mounted among California homeowners who were unable to meet with or find out anything about possible prosecutions of highly-likely purveyors of banking malfeasance such as OneWest Bank's CEO-at-the-time Steve Mnuchin, as evidenced by the many protests at the 2015 convention in Anaheim. For the overwhelming majority of voters who only know or care so much, Harris threads several significant needles. She also possesses a degree of verbal intelligence that is difficult to dismiss, and largely plays well on television.


For sure, but her questionable history with Willie Brown will get exploited. It positively influences quid pro quo in a lot of ways. This is just the fact, because if I was a politican I would straight up go after her for that alone. Can't believe it hasn't been exploited yet; but that time will come. Rather she can get through those murky waters is to be determined.


----------



## kingnoth1n

TheLooseCanon said:


> And don't forget putting her celebrity buddy up to fake a lynching so she can pass a bill nobody fucking cared about for 50 years. A bill she needed to push her identity politics. Those identity politics she smeared Biden with tonight.
> 
> Also, didn't Clinton's crew shifted focus to her as soon as Hill-dog lost in '16? I've always been afraid of Kamala the most in these establishment pushes to try to screw Bernie, I was just hoping they actually dropped her for Biden, because BidenLOL.


yeah this ^ more trump ammo for the debate.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

kingnoth1n said:


> For sure, but her questionable history with Willie Brown will get exploited. It positively influences quid pro quo in a lot of ways. This is just the fact, because if I was a politican I would straight up go after her for that alone. Can't believe it hasn't been exploited yet; but that time will come. Rather she can get through those murky waters is to be determined.


You can't attack her. They will pull the 'sexist' thing that they labeled Bernie with. Now she's even more bulletproof as she has 2 things she can play identity politics with. Remember 2016, if you raise your voice, you're sexist!


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Everybody should know by now Bernie would wipe the floor with Trump in a general. But that's the problem. Dems don't want that. They rather see Trump than Bernie taking over their corporate circle jerk, and actually turn the so called 'left' party just a tad to the left.

Trump's actions gets the media ratings, the politicians screen time and book deals, the war pushers hard, the rich richer, etc.

Bernie would fuck all that up for them.


----------



## kingnoth1n

TheLooseCanon said:


> You can't attack her. They will pull the 'sexist' thing that they labeled Bernie with. Now she's even more bulletproof as she has 2 things she can play identity politics with. Remember 2016, if you raise your voice, you're sexist!


Go back and watch the trump/hilary debate. ID politics couldn't save her from being eviscerated on stage. Trump does a great job at attacking the actions, not the person. See the quote above Trump posted. But Trump also comes up with trolly nicknames that sticks and garrotes the candidate as well. Im sure trumps media team is cooking a good one for her to debut soon.


----------



## DesolationRow

kingnoth1n said:


> For sure, but her questionable history with Willie Brown will get exploited. It positively influences quid pro quo in a lot of ways. This is just the fact, because if I was a politican I would straight up go after her for that alone. Can't believe it hasn't been exploited yet; but that time will come. Rather she can get through those murky waters is to be determined.


You may be right. Kamala Harris does not enjoy the sort of tailwind that Barack Obama did over a decade ago when Hillary Clinton and her aides mercilessly attacked him for his apparent seedy dealings in Chicago with the likes of Antoin "Tony" Rezko--who raised money not only for Obama but for one of the most cartoonishly corrupt figures in U.S. politics in the last half-century, former governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich--the real-estate transaction at the center of which Obama was able to characterize as "a bone-headed move" and, fittingly, move on from same with a snap of his fingers. So you may be right... It will be intriguing to see how "bloody" this race becomes.


----------



## kingnoth1n

TheLooseCanon said:


> Everybody should know by now Bernie would wipe the floor with Trump in a general. But that's the problem. Dems don't want that. They rather see Trump than Bernie taking over their corporate circle jerk, and actually turn the so called 'left' party just a tad to the left.
> 
> Trump's actions gets the media ratings, the politicians screen time and book deals, the war pushers hard, the rich richer, etc.
> 
> Bernie would fuck all that up for them.


Bernies bad math annex's a lot of his plans though if you dive deep, and in these debate platforms as well he doesn't come off as strong as Kharris or even Pokahontas. No matter how good your ideas, you need someone that can 1v1 trump in a debate and smash him to have even a solid chance at 2020--I don't think anyone here has shown that level of gumption in their debate ability yet.

as an aside, and I don't like showing my face in this thread often because I hate discussing politics in a lot of ways, so kinda ducking in and out, but Beto looked like a joke last night.


----------



## ShiningStar

DesolationRow said:


> A friend of Far-East Asian ancestry puts it well on occasion: "We don't _all_ have low verbal IQ, y'know." Andrew Yang fits the stereotypes of a well-meaning Asian technocrat who seems as warm as that bottle of Coca-Cola being peddled in those summertime advertisements.
> 
> Kamala Harris remains the "number one pick." That was never changing, even with Elizabeth Warren's recent surge in polling.
> 
> Joe Biden is more of a fallback possibility. He is an older but cagier Democratic Marco Rubio, as it were, to make a 2016 comparison.
> 
> But Harris has been groomed for this run since before her 2012 Democratic National Convention speech, as Barack Obama was with his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, and Bill Clinton was with his 1988 Democratic National Convention speech. Harris has a complicated, Bardi Family-worthy history with banks. While the negotiated settlement of $25 billion for foreclosed households as California attorney general is superficially impressive, ultimately the banks only had to pay $5 billion of that amount, and much anger mounted among California homeowners who were unable to meet with or find out anything about possible prosecutions of highly-likely purveyors of banking malfeasance such as OneWest Bank's CEO-at-the-time Steve Mnuchin, as evidenced by the many protests at the 2015 convention in Anaheim. For the overwhelming majority of voters who only know or care so much, Harris threads several significant needles. She also possesses a degree of verbal intelligence that is difficult to dismiss, and largely plays well on television.


Kamala was doing okay enough in the poll that she could have played it safe tonight and let Biden,Warren and Sanders to continue to take all the heat. She made a big tactical move with that nutshot at Biden instead of waiting for someone else to make it.

I am not a fan of her's but she put herself in a position where she is gonna be under the microscope with the top contenders and will at some point have to defend a lot of things she did as AG. If she can navigate that and is the nominee at least she will have have done more then Obama or Clinton ever when they got handed the nomination.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

there was a clear agenda on behalf of the network against bernie, that's a given. his questions were all framed with the intent to make him look bad no matter how he answered. he was the only one on stage the moderators even bothered to press.

having said that his inability to rationally defend his own positions just further exposes him for the clown that he is.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1144432141096378373
Joe Biden knows to steer clear of another man's wandering hand.


----------



## Miss Sally

I supported Yang and Tulsi, Yang seems done, hope he can at least raise some tough questions.

Tulsi is going to struggle because the Democrat loyals are dead set against her. 

I'm curious why the party of "inclusiveness" is raking Yang and Tulsi over the coals while going gaga over two old white men, an old white woman who thought she was a Native American and Harris who is completely corrupt. 

The only thing that would make this better is if AOC could run!

Democrats should run on a platform of reparations, 1k a month for all, "free" healthcare and college for illegals, voting rights for illegals, decriminalizing border crossing and the Green New Deal.


----------



## CamillePunk

Biden is a big believer in maintaining one's personal space.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Tulsi talking about how she felt there was bias against her in the debates:


----------



## Miss Sally

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Tulsi talking about how she felt there was bias against her in the debates:


"People only think America can stay engaged if we're blowing them up or strangling them economically."

Tulsi, the monster, ladies and gents! What a crazy woman! :surprise:


----------



## deepelemblues

You can either be a happy warrior or be a loser in politics

Tulsi is not choosing the happy warrior option

Perhaps if she came from a state that was more politically competitive she would better understand that being treated unfairly is not just a part of politics, it IS politics, and that to win at politics a necessary quality is that of being able to transcend or bull through unfair treatment in the big brawl


----------



## kingnoth1n

Only real question every one should be asking now is if Marianne Williamson is going to bust this gem out next debate:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Tulsi talking about how she felt there was bias against her in the debates:


the major cable news networks should not be hosting and moderating these debates. it's clear they are working alongside the establishment parties and doing their best to manipulate the outcome. it's really not all that different than vince mcmahon getting to choose who and who not to push.

in the interest of fairness these debates should be moderated by a completely unbiased third party and aired on all the networks simultaneously. the candidates should be pressed equally and their ideas and proposals should be _challenged_ equally. 

someone like rachel maddow is in no position to be moderating these debates. she's an unapologetic progressive and wears it on her sleeve. it's about as sincere as michael cole hosting a podcast that airs on the wwe network. 

we need actual moderators, not a cheering section.


----------



## .MCH

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Bernie saw a bump in the polls after last night. Bernie comes off as someone who stylistically, pundits and DC types hate with a passion, but who resonates with actual voters. Clinton was a better debater than Sanders back in 2015 (mostly because she was over rehearsed and deflected every question and attack against her) but Sanders always came out of it in a much stronger position. I wouldn't be too shocked if the same thing happened here.

As for Kamala, I just don't know if she really did that much damage to Biden to her benefit. I think, if anything, what hurts Biden is that he looks completely out of step. While he might see a decline, I'm not entirely sure it leads to that big of a bump on Harris' behalf. She'll definitely see an increase, but she and Warren are essentially competing for the same voters at this stage.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> I'm curious why the party of "inclusiveness" is raking Yang and Tulsi over the coals while going gaga over two old white men, an old white woman who thought she was a Native American and Harris who is completely corrupt.


Because they aren't. They are a party of elites and have been for a while. I've been saying since the later years of Obama that the current Democrats wouldn't be out of place in pre-revolution Versailles, telling people who want bread to go eat cake.

Hell, Clinton herself is a modern day Boss Tweed.


----------



## deepelemblues

There's no need for moderators 

Or topics

Or structure* **

Or rules

*Limit participants to 5 per debate. In this contest, that would mean more debates, more opportunities for lower-profile candidates to show what they're made of, greater variety of candidates squaring off, and would avoid candidates standing around doing and saying nothing for extended periods of time during a debate

**Give each candidate a microphone and 3 minutes for an opening statement and another 3 minutes for a closing statement at the end. With 5 candidates, that's 15 minutes at the start and the finish for prepared statements. 2 hours of open conversation in between opening and closing statements

Past that, _THERE. ARE. NO. RULES!_

This method would force the candidates to actually think on their feet and formulate responses extemporaneously, instead of giving canned, rehearsed responses to questions *some* of the candidates always seem to know in advance, and all the other fakeness injected into the spectacle as it is currently run (as a dog-and-pony show)


----------



## Arkham258

I don't care about any of these Democratic debates. It's obvious to many of us that the Dems are lunatics living in an alternate reality chasing non-existent problems while the current president deals with _real_ issues.

They're all Deep State puppets anyway.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145104063362674688


----------



## Draykorinee

Antifa really are the second worst, I don't think they even believe in antifacism, just anarchism (Not the political kind).


----------



## Tater

Arkham258 said:


> I don't care about any of these Democratic debates. It's obvious to many of us that the Dems are lunatics living in an alternate reality chasing non-existent problems while the current president deals with _real_ issues.
> 
> They're all Deep State puppets anyway.


Well, you're half right. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Antifa really are the second worst, I don't think they even believe in antifacism, just anarchism (Not the political kind).


They're communists, actually.


----------



## Arkham258

Antifa a.k.a the terrorist arm of the Democratic party


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antifa really are the second worst, I don't think they even believe in antifacism, just anarchism (Not the political kind).
> 
> 
> 
> They're communists, actually.
Click to expand...

I don't think they're the kind of people that want full state control at all, I'm not sure they're interested in anything more than causing trouble. The idea that these people want authoritarion dictatorships just seems spurious.


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> the major cable news networks should not be hosting and moderating these debates. it's clear they are working alongside the establishment parties and doing their best to manipulate the outcome. it's really not all that different than vince mcmahon getting to choose who and who not to push.
> 
> in the interest of fairness these debates should be moderated by a completely unbiased third party and aired on all the networks simultaneously. the candidates should be pressed equally and their ideas and proposals should be _challenged_ equally.
> 
> *someone like rachel maddow is in no position to be moderating these debates. she's an unapologetic progressive and wears it on her sleeve.* it's about as sincere as michael cole hosting a podcast that airs on the wwe network.
> 
> we need actual moderators, not a cheering section.


You're actually correct with most of this post but calling Rachel Maddow a progressive is about as wrong as wrong gets. Progressives can't stand her. Call her a liberal, fine. Call her the corporate propagandist that she is. Call her a raving lunatic who would rather start a nuclear war with Russia than admit to her brain dead viewers that Trump won because Clinton was really just that goddamned disgusting to the Rust Belt and not because of some Russian collusion fantasy.

But a progressive? Only if words don't have any meaning anymore. Maddow is an establishment mouthpiece. She and her network are to liberals what a Hannity on FOX is to conservatives. One side keeps everyone mad at the "left" and the other side keeps everyone mad at the "right", meanwhile they are all buddies sipping champagne together behind closed doors. 

She exists to keep the idiots fighting amongst themselves instead of focusing on the establishment that has been fucking them over for decades. The absolute last thing Maddow wants is progress. She is a millionaire paid by billionaires to keep things exactly the way they are now. Protect the status quo at all costs, even if it means risking nuclear annihilation.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Can we all agree that in the Western free world the US is the biggest shithole right now.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.glaad.org/publications/accelerating-acceptance-2019
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/andrew-sullivan-democrats-are-in-a-bubble-on-immigration.html <- second item

Radical sexual and gender ideologies being imposed on them is turning young adults against the population groups associated with those ideologies. The percentages in the GLAAD report demonstrate a significant backlash, particularly among young men


----------



## Reservoir Angel

The Hardcore Show said:


> Can we all agree that in the Western free world the US is the biggest shithole right now.


I don't know I'm from the UK and we're making a mighty strong pitch for that title right about now.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145104063362674688


They beat up some journalist named Andy Ngo, an Asian gay man. 

So Antifa, a group mostly made up of white people keep beating up people, minorities included and people just ignore it. :laugh:

Also people are starting to lace milkshakes with cement to cause burns on people. Allegedly to some Police.


----------



## deepelemblues

How is Portland, Oregon, 2019, different from Birmingham, Alabama, 1962?

In both:

-Masked terrorists run the streets and the political agenda with a mixture of threats and violence

-City authorities look the other way because they are afraid of the masked terrorists, or they sympathize with the masked terrorists


----------



## skypod

Miss Sally said:


> They beat up some journalist named Andy Ngo, an Asian gay man.
> 
> So Antifa, a group mostly made up of white people keep beating up people, minorities included and people just ignore it. :laugh:
> 
> Also people are starting to lace milkshakes with cement to cause burns on people.


I mean, I could give a shit about Antifa but I doubt they're beating him up because of his race or sexuality. They presumably have some minorities or gays among their ranks and theyve been up straight white men before.

Also was the cement in milkshakes thing not a right wing hoax?


----------



## Miss Sally

skypod said:


> I mean, I could give a shit about Antifa but I doubt they're beating him up because of his race or sexuality. They presumably have some minorities or gays among their ranks and theyve been up straight white men before.
> 
> Also was the cement in milkshakes thing not a right wing hoax?


No idea on the cement, it's something that a reporter said the Police stated, so who knows. I'll change it to allegedly.

There are videos on youTube of Antifa using racist slurs against minorities not on their side and attacking non-whites.

The whole point is that they don't give a fuck who they beat up, if you're not with them, you're against them. So for a group that's mostly white, it doesn't look good when you consistently attack non-whites.


----------



## DougalShea

CamillePunk said:


> Wow, if you believe the media it's starting to sound like creepy sleepy handsy uncle Joe Biden has a 97% chance of winning. :shocked: Guess there's no point in Trump supporters even showing up for election day!


Putting the groping factor aside...even if he didn't do that shit, he is still the WORST possible candidate for the Democrats. 

Yeah...let's vote for someone who just took PANDERING to an ALL TIME LOW by promising that he would CURE CANCER. 

What a douche canoe Biden is. Yeah, let's make an unattainable and unkeepable promise.

If people are stupid enough to vote for a man who based on that idiotic promise, then they get what they deserve


----------



## Tater

If Biden ends up being the candidate, we'd honestly be better off with another 4 years of Trump.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Tater said:


> If Biden ends up being the candidate, we'd honestly be better off with another 4 years of Trump.


Even the crazy psychic crystal and power of love lady would be better than Trump.

Or at least wouldn't cause every day of their Presidency to feel like a hundred years of sharing a small room with the stupidest person you know.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

what gets me is that didn't anyone know that biden was a racist when he ran with obama? 

isn't it odd how he retroactively become this creepy, toxic guy unworthy of the democratic ticket?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> If Biden ends up being the candidate, we'd honestly be better off with another 4 years of Trump.


And you keep proving why you have no idea what you are talking about lol


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Call it a broad partisan over-simplified statement if you want to but I'd go out on a limb and say that any of the innumerable Democrats currently running for the Presidency would be a better President, better for the country and better for not only the world but also America's standing within it, than Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reservoir Angel said:


> Call it a broad partisan over-simplified statement if you want to but I'd go out on a limb and say that any of the innumerable Democrats currently running for the Presidency would be a better President, better for the country and better for not only the world but also America's standing within it, than Trump.


Not to mention last thing we need is Trump making SCOTUS even more of a shit show with his awful picks.

The next president will be replacing. Ginsberg, no way that can be Trump.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

birthday_massacre said:


> Not to mention last thing we need is Trump making SCOTUS even more of a shit show with his awful picks.
> 
> The next president will be replacing. Ginsberg, no way that can be Trump.


I've always maintained that in the objective scale of things the Brexit bullshit my country is pulling is worse than your country's Trump bullshit because Trump is temporary while Brexit will linger for fucking ages.

But yeah if Trump gets the chance to replace Ginsberg with another Scalia-style right-wing arsehole then America is fucked for a generation with that Supreme Court setup.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reservoir Angel said:


> Call it a broad partisan over-simplified statement if you want to but I'd go out on a limb and say that any of the innumerable Democrats currently running for the Presidency would be a better President, better for the country and better for not only the world but also America's standing within it, than Trump.


you do know the stage is full of communists and a hippie witch lady right?


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Berzerker's Beard said:


> you do know the stage is full of communists and a hippie witch lady right?


If you think any of that lot are actually communist then you need to go back to school and actually learn what fucking communism is.

You're not going to get any points over me by throwing out inaccurate nonsense that only works with the dolts on Fox News any more than me calling Trump a fascist dictator will sway you about the moron.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reservoir Angel said:


> If you think any of that lot are actually communist then you need to go back to school and actually learn what fucking communism is.
> 
> You're not going to get any points over me by throwing out inaccurate nonsense that only works with the dolts on Fox News any more than me calling Trump a fascist dictator will sway you about the moron.


you took issue with me referring to them as communists yet you had nothing to say about referring marianne williamson as a hippie witch lady :lol

i guess even you agree it's not much of a reach then.


----------



## deepelemblues

What is the point of I hate the man well the others are a bunch of weirdos well I HATE THE MAN well they're a bunch of WEIRDOS

Ritualized responses. Dance around the effigy in the appropriate fashion


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Berzerker's Beard said:


> you took issue with me referring to them as communists yet you had nothing to say about referring marianne williamson as a hippie witch lady :lol
> 
> i guess even you agree it's not much of a reach then.


Her being a crazy hippie weirdo still doesn't mean anything in relation to your failed understanding of communism.

And while I acknowledge her as a crazy hippie witch, the difference is I don't think that's as much of a bad thing as you probably do.

I mean given the Republican healthcare plan is "pay all your money or die horribly" I reckon giving witchcraft a go is still more sensible.


----------



## Strike Force

Reservoir Angel said:


> Call it a broad partisan over-simplified statement if you want to but I'd go out on a limb and say that any of the innumerable Democrats currently running for the Presidency would be a better President, better for the country and better for not only the world but also America's standing within it, than Trump.


Not _all_ of them, but many, I agree.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> you do know the stage is full of communists and a *hippie witch lady* right?


Wait, which one?!? 



Berzerker's Beard said:


> you do know the stage is full of *communists* and a hippie witch lady right?


Not communists _per se_, but it is amazing how far the Democractic party has moved. Bernie Sanders' ideas, which were considered far left and extreme as recently as 2015, are now being parroted by virtually everyone on that debate stage.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> in the interest of fairness these debates should be moderated by a completely unbiased third party and aired on all the networks simultaneously. the candidates should be pressed equally and their ideas and proposals should be _challenged_ equally.


I absolutely agree, because these debates should be functional, informative affairs, not a TV show with commercials hosted by a particular outlet. However, who/what is that unbiased third party? I don't personally know.



.MCH said:


> I actually wouldn't be surprised if Bernie saw a bump in the polls after last night.


Respectfully disagree - I think Bernie's already reached his ceiling. Unlike 2014-ish, by now, most voters are familiar both with Bernie and his policies/beliefs. He's been tooting the same horn for forty years - who are the voters that were skeptical before but buy into the Bernie message now?



The Hardcore Show said:


> Can we all agree that in the Western free world the US is the biggest shithole right now.


The UK and the US:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reservoir Angel said:


> Her being a crazy hippie weirdo still doesn't mean anything in relation to your failed understanding of communism.
> 
> And while I acknowledge her as a crazy hippie witch, the difference is I don't think that's as much of a bad thing as you probably do.
> 
> I mean given the Republican healthcare plan is "pay all your money or die horribly" I reckon giving witchcraft a go is still more sensible.


would you rather have her in the oval office than trump?


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Strike Force said:


> Not _all_ of them, but many, I agree.


Well now I've gotta ask: Which ones specifically do you think would be worse than Trump?



> Not communists _per se_, but it is amazing how far the Democractic party has moved. Bernie Sanders' ideas, which were considered far left and extreme as recently as 2015, are now being parroted by virtually everyone on that debate stage.


See I see it less about how 'far left' the Democrats have moved but more a tale of how far to the right the US's overton window has been for so long that ideas like universal healthcare are seen as far-left craziness rather than basically sensible policy that's worked wonders in basically every other Western nation since they figured it out decades ago.

Basically a lot of what the more left-wing Democrats are pushing for is stuff that makes the rest of us outside of your borders look at you all and think "wait, how the fuck has the self-proclaimed greatest nation on Earth not managed to figure this out yet?"


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Berzerker's Beard said:


> would you rather have her in the oval office than trump?


Yes.


----------



## Strike Force

Reservoir Angel said:


> Well now I've gotta ask: Which ones specifically do you think would be worse than Trump?


*Swalwell* feels like there isn't anything there, I wouldn't trust *Yang* to manage a Stucky's off the I-87 interchange, *the witch lady* seems like she lives in her own little universe, and *DeBlasio* is so hated in his own city that the idea of him running a country is laughable. There are probably a few other irrelevant people I woulnd't want in there, but those are the ones that spring immediately to mind.



Reservoir Angel said:


> See I see it less about how 'far left' the Democrats have moved but more a tale of how far to the right the US's overton window has been for so long that ideas like universal healthcare are seen as far-left craziness rather than basically sensible policy that's worked wonders in basically every other Western nation since they figured it out decades ago.
> 
> Basically a lot of what the more left-wing Democrats are pushing for is stuff that makes the rest of us outside of your borders look at you all and think "wait, how the fuck has the self-proclaimed greatest nation on Earth not managed to figure this out yet?"


I'm not making a value judgment on those policies, just pointing out that the party's shifted dramatically to the left of late. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to the Democratic devotees to decide.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reservoir Angel said:


> Well now I've gotta ask: Which ones specifically do you think would be worse than Trump?
> 
> 
> *See I see it less about how 'far left' the Democrats have moved but more a tale of how far to the right the US's overton window has been for so long that ideas like universal healthcare are seen as far-left craziness rather than basically sensible policy that's worked wonders in basically every other Western nation since they figured it out decades ago.*
> 
> Basically a lot of what the more left-wing Democrats are pushing for is stuff that makes the rest of us outside of your borders look at you all and think "wait, how the fuck has the self-proclaimed greatest nation on Earth not managed to figure this out yet?"


every other western nation doesn't have 50-60 million people that are classified as medically obese, nor do they have millions of illegal immigrants pouring in every year.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Strike Force said:


> *Swalwell* feels like there isn't anything there, I wouldn't trust *Yang* to manage a Stucky's off the I-87 interchange, *the witch lady* seems like she lives in her own little universe, and *DeBlasio* is so hated in his own city that the idea of him running a country is laughable. There are probably a few other irrelevant people I woulnd't want in there, but those are the ones that spring immediately to mind.


I mean until you mentioned them I legit forgot that Swalwell and DeBlasio even existed.

... still probably rather have them than Trump though.


----------



## GothicBohemian

_The hippie witch lady? _ lol

Marianne Williamson isn't a witch, she writes books about spirituality. She is, however, an idealistic lady whose platform suits my beliefs more than some of the candidates. She won't win anything - as much as I'd embrace a society built on bits (far from all) of what she preaches I'm not stupid enough to think that has wide support - but I'd bet she appeals to certain types of _crystal-healing-yoga-practicing-self-improvement-book-reading-latte-drinking_ former Oprah watcher housewives. 

None of the Democrat candidates have the whole package. Like Williamson, each has something good but that's offset by a lot of negative baggage or dumb ideas. The ultimate winner will be the least interesting one with the blandest combination because the others cancel each other out by virtue of having separate pockets of support that attach to a key issue. Trump sucks, he's an appalling president, but he has the advantage of not (yet) having anyone enough like him policy wise to siphon off right-leaning voters who will pick him by default. His supporters know he isn't genuinely 'one of them' but he's allowing their desires to dictate American policy and that's all they really want.


----------



## CamillePunk

Like I've said all along, the Dem nomine will either be a progressive (Bernie or to a lesser extent Warren) or a centrist who pretends to be progressive (Kamala). I think Kamala will win based on a number of factors I've already gone into at length and the debates strengthened this prediction considerably. She absolutely killed it. Bernie came off as a curmudgeon for much of it and only really got going later on. 

All the centrists who don't even try to act like they're on the left have no chance, including Biden. I said that from the day he announced. 

Some people do fit into the two categories but still have no chance such as progressives like Tulsi, and fake progressives like Booker. OK Booker doesn't have ZERO chance but he's a long shot. It would take Bernie, Warren, and Kamala all collapsing somehow. Anyone mentioning Klobuchar or Gillibrand as serious candidates has no idea what they're talking about. :lol So much awful analysis out there.

Harris vs Trump IMO. Get ready for a whole lot of race and gender baiting.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Some twisted part of my psyche wants the Democratic ticket to be Harris and Buttigieg.

Just because it'd be darkly, disgustingly, shamefully funny from an outside perspective to see Trump and his fans be sexist, racist and homophobic out in the open all at once while the entire news media pretends that the issue is Harris and Mayor Pete just not being nice enough to the fucking cretins.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reservoir Angel said:


> Some twisted part of my psyche wants the Democratic ticket to be Harris and Buttigieg.
> 
> Just because it'd be darkly, disgustingly, shamefully funny from an outside perspective to see Trump and his fans be sexist, racist and homophobic out in the open all at once while the entire news media pretends that the issue is Harris and Mayor Pete just not being nice enough to the fucking cretins.


If Harris picked Mayor Pete as her running mate I would have zero respect for her.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Like I've said all along, the Dem nomine will either be a progressive (Bernie or to a lesser extent Warren) or a centrist who pretends to be progressive (Kamala). I think Kamala will win based on a number of factors I've already gone into at length and the debates strengthened this prediction considerably. She absolutely killed it. Bernie came off as a curmudgeon for much of it and only really got going later on.
> 
> All the centrists who don't even try to act like they're on the left have no chance, including Biden. I said that from the day he announced.
> 
> Some people do fit into the two categories but still have no chance such as progressives like Tulsi, and fake progressives like Booker. OK Booker doesn't have ZERO chance but he's a long shot. It would take Bernie, Warren, and Kamala all collapsing somehow. Anyone mentioning Klobuchar or Gillibrand as serious candidates has no idea what they're talking about. :lol So much awful analysis out there.
> 
> Harris vs Trump IMO. Get ready for a whole lot of race and gender baiting.


Can you imagine Harris and Buttigieg running against Trump?

That's like an identity politic dream, minority woman and gay man man duo.

It would be so fun to watch because no policies would get discussed at all. :laugh:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CamillePunk said:


> Harris vs Trump IMO. Get ready for a whole lot of race and gender baiting.


i'm curious why no one cried sexism when obama beat hillary for the nomination back in 08.

it was "her time" then too wasn't it? she was the most experienced and qualified for the job right? clearly more fit for the job than some newcomer?

where was the outrage from the left when the god queen was ousted in favor of an NXT call up? i suppose obama being half black afforded him an equal amount of oppression points?

i shutter to think of the blowback if trump were to beat harris. i imagine james bond, superman and terminator would all be recast as light skinned black women in their upcoming reboots.


----------



## deepelemblues

GothicBohemian said:


> _The hippie witch lady? _ lol
> 
> Marianne Williamson isn't a witch, she writes books about spirituality. She is, however, an idealistic lady whose platform suits my beliefs more than some of the candidates. She won't win anything - as much as I'd embrace a society built on bits (far from all) of what she preaches I'm not stupid enough to think that has wide support - but I'd bet she appeals to certain types of _crystal-healing-yoga-practicing-self-improvement-book-reading-latte-drinking_ former Oprah watcher housewives.
> 
> None of the Democrat candidates have the whole package. Like Williamson, each has something good but that's offset by a lot of negative baggage or dumb ideas. The ultimate winner will be the least interesting one with the blandest combination because the others cancel each other out by virtue of having separate pockets of support that attach to a key issue. Trump sucks, he's an appalling president, but he has the advantage of not (yet) having anyone enough like him policy wise to siphon off right-leaning voters who will pick him by default. His supporters know he isn't genuinely 'one of them' but he's allowing their desires to dictate American policy and that's all they really want.


At least she won't be the Democrats' 2020 sacrifice 

Wait a minute, :trump administration policy is being dictated _by the people who voted for him?! _ The hell is this, some kind of country where the president actually governs based on what the people who voted for that president want? When did that start, January 20, 2017, or sometime?


----------



## Tater

Reservoir Angel said:


> Even the crazy psychic crystal and power of love lady would be better than Trump.
> 
> Or at least wouldn't cause every day of their Presidency to feel like a hundred years of sharing a small room with the stupidest person you know.


A dried up piece of shit on a log would be better than Trump. That's missing the point. Americans need to stop viewing this as one election at a time and start seeing the big picture. Every single time we elect on of these every increasingly shitty right wing neoliberal Democrats, the next time we get an even further right wing nut job Republican in response. Carter got us Reagan and HW. Clinton got us Dubya. Obama got us Trump. 

I don't want to see what monstrosity the Republicans would replace the next one with. No one else should either. Until we break the pattern of every Democrat moving right and every Republican moving right in response, shit is going to continue getting worse. We have to break the pattern if anything is ever going to get any better.



birthday_massacre said:


> And you keep proving why you have no idea what you are talking about lol


:dead2

Put me back on ignore. You're the kind of lesser evil voting liberal who gave us Trump in the first place. 



Reservoir Angel said:


> I've always maintained that in the objective scale of things the Brexit bullshit my country is pulling is worse than your country's Trump bullshit because Trump is temporary while Brexit will linger for fucking ages.
> 
> But yeah if Trump gets the chance to replace Ginsberg with another Scalia-style right-wing arsehole then America is fucked for a generation with that Supreme Court setup.


The only real question of who we would get on the Supreme Court from a Democrat or a Republican is in regards to social issues. We'll never get a court that sides with workers over corporations, so they keep everyone distracted fighting over gay marriage and abortion rights. This is not an argument that will frighten me into voting for another shitty right wing Democrat.



CamillePunk said:


> Like I've said all along, the Dem nomine will either be a progressive (Bernie or to a lesser extent Warren) or a centrist who pretends to be progressive (Kamala). I think Kamala will win based on a number of factors I've already gone into at length and the debates strengthened this prediction considerably. She absolutely killed it. Bernie came off as a curmudgeon for much of it and only really got going later on.
> 
> All the centrists who don't even try to act like they're on the left have no chance, including Biden. I said that from the day he announced.
> 
> Some people do fit into the two categories but still have no chance such as progressives like Tulsi, and fake progressives like Booker. OK Booker doesn't have ZERO chance but he's a long shot. It would take Bernie, Warren, and Kamala all collapsing somehow. Anyone mentioning Klobuchar or Gillibrand as serious candidates has no idea what they're talking about. :lol So much awful analysis out there.
> 
> Harris vs Trump IMO. Get ready for a whole lot of race and gender baiting.


I think you're right about this. We're probably looking at a Harris vs Trump election and it is going to be a shit show. I've known the primaries would be rigged for Harris since the day I heard she was having a private meeting with the Clinton donors. If she wins, Hillary would effectively become the shadow president because she would be the one pulling Kamala's strings. I remember the rush after the last election to replace every DNC official even remotely unbiased towards Bernie with a Clintonite. The primaries will be even more rigged this time than they were last time. They were planning on installing Harris from the moment Hillary lost. 

It'll come down to Harris and Bernie in the end. It might even be close like the last one but the scales will be weighted in her favor. Biden is not in it to win it. He is only in it so they don't have to call Bernie the front runner. He's already tanking now that he is out there talking, which everyone who knew anything about Biden expected from day 1. All the rest is just political theater.

It's still possible that Bernie wins but basically all Kamala has to do is not intentionally tank her own campaign. The old white man vs the younger woman of color identity politics is going to get nasty in these primaries. People thought it was bad with Hillary last time and she is white. Now they get to use racism *and* sexism against those who don't fall in line behind the chosen candidate. 

You have to :lol because you will go insane taking all of this completely seriously. Everyone will get all excited in the primaries and by the general it'll probably be the same old establishment garbage that it always is.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> It'll come down to Harris and Bernie in the end. It might even be close like the last one but the scales will be weighted in her favor. Biden is not in it to win it. He is only in it so they don't have to call Bernie the front runner. He's already tanking now that he is out there talking, which everyone who knew anything about Biden expected from day 1. All the rest is just political theater.
> 
> It's still possible that Bernie wins but basically all Kamala has to do is not intentionally tank her own campaign. The old white man vs the younger woman of color identity politics is going to get nasty in these primaries. People thought it was bad with Hillary last time and she is white. Now they get to use racism *and* sexism against those who don't fall in line behind the chosen candidate.


While you're right about the scales being tipped, Bernie is not doing himself a lot of favors. He definitely had some good moments the other night but there were also some moments where he came off as a caricature of an angry old man trying to start a revolution at the deli counter rather than trying to seriously transform a country. "If you could only pass one thing, what would it be?" was a fair question and helps gives voters a sense of what your top priority is. It's hard to pass major reform through, the idea that one president is going to come in and transform the country bottom-up is unrealistic in our political system. It's very possible he could win and then only get one thing passed. Not a bad thing to let people know what that one thing would be. 

I thought his closing statement was really good though, pointing out how every election you have people promising to make big changes but then nothing ever actually changes. I don't think anyone really doubts that Bernie is serious about what he wants to do, whether you think those are good ideas or not, and it was good that he pointed that out on a night where a lot of people were blatantly playing pretend.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> While you're right about the scales being tipped, Bernie is not doing himself a lot of favors. He definitely had some good moments the other night but there were also some moments where he came off as a caricature of an angry old man trying to start a revolution at the deli counter rather than trying to seriously transform a country. "If you could only pass one thing, what would it be?" was a fair question and helps gives voters a sense of what your top priority is. It's hard to pass major reform through, the idea that one president is going to come in and transform the country bottom-up is unrealistic in our political system. It's very possible he could win and then only get one thing passed. Not a bad thing to let people know what that one thing would be.
> 
> I thought his closing statement was really good though, pointing out how every election you have people promising to make big changes but then nothing ever actually changes. I don't think anyone really doubts that Bernie is serious about what he wants to do, whether you think those are good ideas or not, and it was good that he pointed that out on a night where a lot of people were blatantly playing pretend.


Bernie buckles too much. Even if he were elected, I don't think he has the backbone to use the full power of the bully pulpit to get what he wants through Congress. You know I have many problems with him but I'd still like to see him elected only because it would show a lot of other people that they can win public office without being funded by oligarchs. Regardless of any politician's personal positions, it would be nice to have politicians actually trying to implement their own personal positions instead of what they are paid to do by their donors.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145844504114683909
This is what happens when a peace candidate shows up in a party full of war mongers. Notice how these people never worry about "progressive" Warren's foreign policy.


----------



## CamillePunk

Is "foreign policy positions" code for "not only is she hotter than us but she's the down to Earth cool chick too, this is really unfair"? :lol


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Is "foreign policy positions" code for "not only is she hotter than us but she's the down to Earth cool chick too, this is really unfair"? :lol


Yah, I have a pretty difficult time seeing any of the rest of them on a surfboard. I definitely don't want to see what the rest of them would be wearing at the beach.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Put me back on ignore. You're the kind of lesser evil voting liberal who gave us Trump in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> T


LMAO you are the one who said we were better off with Trump than Hillary, its sad you are still dying on that hill, after you seeing I was right about what a disaster Trump has been.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> LMAO you are the one who said we were better off with Trump than Hillary, its sad you are still dying on that hill, after you seeing I was right about what a disaster Trump has been.


This message is not for you because I have explained it to you ad infinitum and you are still too dense to comprehend it. This message is for anyone else reading it.

Yes, Hillary was the lesser evil than Donald Trump. Yes, we are better off that Donald Trump won. Both of these things are simultaneously true.

It's because, lesser evil voting is what causes greater evil wins. It's lesser evil voting that created such a fucked up situation where someone like Donald Trump could come even remotely close to becoming president. Had the Democrats actually served their constituents instead of being corporate lackeys when they were given control of government after the Dubya disaster, we would have never been in the situation in the first place where Republicans had control of Congress and everyone was being told they had to vote for someone as god awful as Hillary to stop the monster Trump.

As long as all the Democrats have to offer is, we're not as shitty as these other guys, the other guys are going to continue winning elections. That's why it's better that Trump won instead of Hillary, because had Hillary won, nothing would have gotten any better and she would have been facing someone even worse than Donald Trump next year. And so on and so forth. 

If the Democrats manage to rig their primaries again for another Clintonite, I will hope Trump wins again. And if the Democrats manage to rig their primaries again in 2024 for another Clintonite, I hope whatever garbage the Republicans puke up wins that election too. Until people not actually owned by the oligarchs can take control away from that party from the lackeys currently running it, nothing is going to get better. Before you can defeat the Republicans, you have to defeat the establishment Democrats first. As long as they remain in control of the party, the fight will always be a losing battle.

No matter how many times some idiot liberal says to you that you have to vote for their shitty candidate because the Republican monster is so much worse, they will always and forever be wrong. You want to win elections and keep the Republican monsters out of power? Get rid of the lesser evil Democrat monsters first.

That is the only way to stop the next Donald Trump from getting elected.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tucker 2024 :mark:



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145854386255663104
I love Twitter so much. :lol (See results)

Definitely Guns > Kids. A kid won't protect your home from a house invader. At least, not without a gun. Real life isn't Home Alone.


----------



## The Game

Interesting article I thought I'd share on some major (and lots of minor) dirt from 4 of the candidates. It basically does the Republicans dirty work for them, but a lot of it is interesting to note and I'm sure we'll hear about some of this stuff in the coming months : https://medium.com/@westonpagano/a-...andidates-you-should-not-vote-for-c1c6e4c9c26

Swalwell going at Biden and Bernie the other night was hilariously pathetic. You could tell he rehearsed so many lines and his delivery was shocking on all of them. At least Harris delivered on her blows to Biden.


----------



## blaird

CamillePunk said:


> Tucker 2024 :mark:
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145854386255663104
> I love Twitter so much. :lol (See results)
> 
> Definitely Guns > Kids. A kid won't protect your home from a house invader. At least, not without a gun. Real life isn't Home Alone.


LOL it’s like 80% no we love guns>kids....don’t think this went the way he thought. I would love to see him address this after the poll closes.


----------



## Strike Force

Just...fuck off, Swalwell. Your debate performance made it sound like someone hit you in the back of the head with a frying pan right before things started.



blaird said:


> LOL it’s like 80% no we love guns>kids....don’t think this went the way he thought. I would love to see him address this after the poll closes.


I'm totally against assault weapons, but if presented with that poll, how do you NOT choose "We love guns > kids" just to embarrass the moron for painting pro-gun people as hating children?


----------



## blaird

Strike Force said:


> Just...fuck off, Swalwell. Your debate performance made it sound like someone hit you in the back of the head with a frying pan right before things started.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally against assault weapons, but if presented with that poll, how do you NOT choose "We love guns > kids" just to embarrass the moron for painting pro-gun people as hating children?


I voted for we love guns just because I’m an ass and I thought how funny would it be if this was voted for more than the other option...I laughed when I saw it was dominating the other one. 

I’d love to see someone mention this at the next debate


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

The Game said:


> Interesting article I thought I'd share on some major (and lots of minor) dirt from 4 of the candidates. It basically does the Republicans dirty work for them, but a lot of it is interesting to note and I'm sure we'll hear about some of this stuff in the coming months : https://medium.com/@westonpagano/a-...andidates-you-should-not-vote-for-c1c6e4c9c26
> 
> *Swalwell going at Biden and Bernie the other night was hilariously pathetic. You could tell he rehearsed so many lines and his delivery was shocking on all of them. At least Harris delivered on her blows to Biden.*


bro come on harris is the fakest one on the stage. "that little girl was me..." ... "the people aren't here to see a food fight..."..

she's black hillary. nothing sincere about anything she says.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Swalwell is basically a non-entity in this race but his presence at the debate furnished two decent moments:

1) His line about how Biden was right about needing to pass the torch to a new generation when he said it like 30 years ago, because it just drilled home how much old hangers-on like Biden need to fuck the fuck off right about now.

2) This death state from Mayor Pete while Swalwell was talking:


----------



## CamillePunk

I didn't know that much about Mayor Pete's checkered past. :lol Yikes. Thought he had more a blank slate to work with than that. Not sure why he thinks he's in for a shot at president. I guess Trump's victory is making everyone dream big.  What an inspirational guy.


----------



## deepelemblues

Willie Brown saying none of the candidates including his former mistress Kamala have what it takes to beat :trump 

:ha


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> I didn't know that much about Mayor Pete's checkered past. :lol Yikes. Thought he had more a blank slate to work with than that. Not sure why he thinks he's in for a shot at president.



He is basically the Denny's of candidates. The media and establishment would be okay with him,but the media is salivating at Biden vs Trump mudfight or a Dolezal or Harris vs Trump. He would basically be their 4th option. Same thing with the establishment preferring Biden,Harris or Dolezal but still considering him an acceptable choice. He could definitely win the primary if you have something like 2008 on the GOP where you had a weak frontrunner then a few different people took the lead and McCain kind of fell in by default. If he can reasonably explain the protestors and dealing with police in his city seems like he would actually be a strong GE candidate.


----------



## The Game

Berzerker's Beard said:


> bro come on harris is the fakest one on the stage. "that little girl was me..." ... "the people aren't here to see a food fight..."..
> 
> she's black hillary. nothing sincere about anything she says.


You might've seen through her but Harris was good on that stage. She did everything right. Yeah there were obvious points she was aiming for, like targeting Biden but they actually worked unlike Swalwell who fell flat on his face. 

I love how after she delivered that food fight line, Biden clapped her and she looked at him with disgust then looked away. That was some cold shit.


----------



## The Game

Reservoir Angel said:


> Swalwell is basically a non-entity in this race but his presence at the debate furnished two decent moments:
> 
> 1) His line about how Biden was right about needing to pass the torch to a new generation when he said it like 30 years ago, because it just drilled home how much old hangers-on like Biden need to fuck the fuck off right about now.
> 
> 2) This death state from Mayor Pete while Swalwell was talking:


I thought I was the only one that noticed this. Pete was absolutely seething. I wonder how he would've responded if given the chance.


----------



## deepelemblues

The Game said:


> I thought I was the only one that noticed this. Pete was absolutely seething. I wonder how he would've responded if given the chance.


Probably a slapfight, Buttplug and Swallows are the two most passive-aggressive bitches in the race


----------



## Reservoir Angel

deepelemblues said:


> Probably a slapfight, Buttplug and Swallows are the two most passive-aggressive bitches in the race


Buttigieg embraces the proud gay tradition of being able to bust out pure unbridled cattiness at a moment's notice.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Willie Brown saying none of the candidates including his former mistress Kamala have what it takes to beat :trump
> 
> :ha


Well luckily for them they will have the combined might of all of the social media companies on their side.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Well luckily for them they will have the combined might of all of the social media companies on their side.


They missed their chance 4 years ago 

Now they can try all they like but everybody knows what is up with them


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145785812933496832
:mj4

Nate does this professionally btw.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1145785812933496832
> :mj4
> 
> Nate does this professionally btw.


It will be sunny tomorrow in between sunrise and sunset

Unless there are clouds


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

ABC, CBS & NBC are all declining to air the July 4th celebration in favor of regularly scheduled programming.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/networks-will-snub-trump-salute-to-america


these babies just refuse to eat their vegetables. this is fucking insane. :lol


----------



## Tater

Berzerker's Beard said:


> ABC, CBS & NBC are all declining to air the July 4th celebration in favor of regularly scheduled programming.
> 
> https://www.theblaze.com/news/networks-will-snub-trump-salute-to-america
> 
> 
> these babies just refuse to eat their vegetables. this is fucking insane. :lol


I'm not going to argue that they aren't doing this for petty reasons. They're not doing this as principled opposition to the military industrial complex. All the major networks are war propagandists. But am I going to balk at less coverage of Trump's glorified war rally? Nope.

They reached the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons but I'll take it.


----------



## CamillePunk

Ye I'm not watching some jingoist parade, nor will I be concern trolled about the cost of it by people who would happily take all of my money to fund their own government pet projects.


----------



## 2 Ton 21




----------



## Mr.Monkey

With the way things are going it may look like Warren vs Harris to determine the nominee. Warren is eating away bernie's support while Harris is eating away 
Biden's support. I see Harris doing more damage to Biden than Warren to Bernie though. Biden is so volatile to Harris for many reasons it ain't even funny. I mean Kamala has baggage to. If Biden wants to maintain his top spot he better do his research on kamala or buttigieg


----------



## CamillePunk

Well then hopefully all the sexists Hillary wrote about from 2016 show up again in 2020! :lol

#ProtectThePatriarchy


----------



## Mr.Monkey

CamillePunk said:


> Well then hopefully all the sexists Hillary wrote about from 2016 show up again in 2020! :lol
> 
> #ProtectThePatriarchy


If Kamala is the nominee your racist and sexist for not voting for her.


----------



## CamillePunk

I want Donald J Trump to be the first female president by identifying as a woman for a day. Just to make the social justice crowd's heads explode. :lol


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> I want Donald J Trump to be the first female president by identifying as a woman for a day. Just to make the social justice crowd's heads explode. :lol


Hopefully it pisses off the Republicans too and in all the confusion they forget to start their war with Iran.


----------



## skypod

A lot of SJW's on twitter have started to turn on Harris thankfully. People think identity politics is her driving force but honestly it could also be her downfall.

From what I can gather she is seen as anti-trans because of putting trans female in with males, she's seen as anti-Black because of being tough on drug crime in the streets (even quoted as saying "I don't feel bad for them, they're guilty") and false because of how vehemently she was against marijuana.


----------



## The Game

What are people's thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard? Does she have even the slightest chance whatsoever?


----------



## Tater

The Game said:


> What are people's thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard? Does she have even the slightest chance whatsoever?


She's my favorite person in the race but I don't think she has any realistic chance at winning. What she's doing now is raising her national name recognition for future runs and getting her antiwar message on the stage. I think the most likely outcome for her is dropping out to win her seat in Congress again or potentially getting an administration spot should Bernie win.


----------



## Arkham258

Tulsi is an idiot who wants to take everyone's guns. And her approach to foreign affairs is just to stay out of everything, which doesn't always work.

Hearing her criticize Trump's approach with Iran is hilarious to me as she has no idea what's really going on but talks like she's some kind of foreign policy expert, but that's all the Dems. They act smart, but are all clueless


----------



## Tater

Arkham258 said:


> Tulsi is an idiot who wants to take everyone's guns. And her approach to foreign affairs is just to stay out of everything, which doesn't always work.
> 
> Hearing her criticize Trump's approach with Iran is hilarious to me as she has no idea what's really going on but talks like she's some kind of foreign policy expert, but that's all the Dems. They act smart, but are all clueless


I'd say turn off the FOX news but the fairest MSM coverage she gets is when she goes on Tucker's show. The same Tucker who agrees with her foreign policy views and supposedly advises Trump on foreign policy to steer him away from some of the more reckless neocon ideas.

There's someone here who doesn't have any idea what's really going on and it's not Tulsi.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> I'd say turn off the FOX news but the fairest MSM coverage she gets is when she goes on Tucker's show. The same Tucker who agrees with her foreign policy views and supposedly advises Trump on foreign policy to steer him away from some of the more reckless neocon ideas.
> 
> There's someone here who doesn't have any idea what's really going on and it's not Tulsi.


She actually gets to speak her mind on his show and the discussions they have are quite good. It's crazy tucker is the only one who gives her such treatment.


----------



## Draykorinee

The Game said:


> What are people's thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard? Does she have even the slightest chance whatsoever?


She's probably the closest thing the left have to a candidate that can convince some on the right to vote for a Dem. Only the really crazy, stupid ones are against her.


----------



## Tater

Draykorinee said:


> She's probably the closest thing the left have to a candidate that can convince some on the right to vote for a Dem. Only the really crazy, stupid ones are against her.


I've seen her get considerable praise from the antiwar libertarian right.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> She's probably the closest thing the left have to a candidate that can convince some on the right to vote for a Dem. Only the really crazy, stupid ones are against her.


Because she's praised and criticized Trump on stuff that matters, not silly stuff. She's reached out to Republicans and everyone else to work on stuff. She listens to everyone, she's well spoken and smart. She's also former Military.

Tucker and many Libertarians/Right Wingers and Independents respect her. Who would they rather vote for? A woman who's served in the Military who dislikes war, who listens to people and won't back down? Or Bernie who's a career Politician who has flip flopped, bowed down to the establishment and represents retarded Socialist Lite neerdowells? :shrug


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> She's probably the closest thing the left have to a candidate that can convince some on the right to vote for a Dem. Only the really crazy, stupid ones are against her.
> 
> 
> 
> Because she's praised and criticized Trump on stuff that matters, not silly stuff. She's reached out to Republicans and everyone else to work on stuff. She listens to everyone, she's well spoken and smart. She's also former Military.
> 
> Tucker and many Libertarians/Right Wingers and Independents respect her. Who would they rather vote for? A woman who's served in the Military who dislikes war, who listens to people and won't back down? Or Bernie who's a career Politician who has flip flopped, bowed down to the establishment and represents retarded Socialist Lite neerdowells? <img src="https://i.imgur.com/VqmkupW.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Shrug" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

Yeah, libertarians ain't touching Bernie.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> Because she's praised and criticized Trump on stuff that matters, not silly stuff. She's reached out to Republicans and everyone else to work on stuff. She listens to everyone, she's well spoken and smart. She's also former Military.
> 
> Tucker and many Libertarians/Right Wingers and Independents respect her. Who would they rather vote for? A woman who's served in the Military who dislikes war, who listens to people and won't back down? Or Bernie who's a career Politician who has flip flopped, bowed down to the establishment and represents retarded Socialist Lite neerdowells? :shrug





Draykorinee said:


> Yeah, libertarians ain't touching Bernie.


This is true and I know there is basically zero chance of it happening but it would be the most interesting election ever if it was Tulsi vs Trump. The map would be all over the place. You'd see diehard establishment Dems openly and actively promoting Trump and not an inconsiderable amount of the right backing Tulsi. The always Dem and always Rep voters would still exist but there would be a large amount in between that would be a complete tossup. We could potentially see solid red and solid blue states flipping the other direction. One of the worst things about how the electoral college is set up is that only a few battleground states decide the election. A Tulsi vs Trump election would put nearly the entire country into play.

Damn, it's fun to think about but we're not allowed to have nice things in the USA.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Tater said:


> This is true and I know there is basically zero chance of it happening but it would be the most interesting election ever if it was Tulsi vs Trump. The map would be all over the place. You'd see diehard establishment Dems openly and actively promoting Trump and not an inconsiderable amount of the right backing Tulsi. The always Dem and always Rep voters would still exist but there would be a large amount in between that would be a complete tossup. We could potentially see solid red and solid blue states flipping the other direction. One of the worst things about how the electoral college is set up is that only a few battleground states decide the election. A Tulsi vs Trump election would put nearly the entire country into play.
> 
> Damn, it's fun to think about but we're not allowed to have nice things in the USA.


Tulsi would win and it wouldn't be close.

I have a lot of conservative friends who LOVE Tulsi Gabbard more than any other candidate(including Trump) 

I don't know how much the turnout from liberals would be (most Dem friends I have love either Harris or Sanders) but I can easily say that Gabbard is the closest thing I have seen to a moderate (in terms of popularity) I have seen in a very long time


----------



## Tater

The Game said:


> What are people's thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard? Does she have even the slightest chance whatsoever?





Arkham258 said:


> Tulsi is an idiot who wants to take everyone's guns. And her approach to foreign affairs is just to stay out of everything, which doesn't always work.
> 
> Hearing her criticize Trump's approach with Iran is hilarious to me as she has no idea what's really going on but talks like she's some kind of foreign policy expert, but that's all the Dems. They act smart, but are all clueless





Miss Sally said:


> She actually gets to speak her mind on his show and the discussions they have are quite good. It's crazy tucker is the only one who gives her such treatment.





Draykorinee said:


> She's probably the closest thing the left have to a candidate that can convince some on the right to vote for a Dem. Only the really crazy, stupid ones are against her.





DMD Mofomagic said:


> Tulsi would win and it wouldn't be close.
> 
> I have a lot of conservative friends who LOVE Tulsi Gabbard more than any other candidate(including Trump)
> 
> I don't know how much the turnout from liberals would be (most Dem friends I have love either Harris or Sanders) but I can easily say that Gabbard is the closest thing I have seen to a moderate (in terms of popularity) I have seen in a very long time


*Incredible* interview on Tucker with Tulsi here:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1147089945338642432
This is all the proof anyone needs that opposing war is not a left vs right issue.


----------



## Dr. Middy

The Game said:


> What are people's thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard? Does she have even the slightest chance whatsoever?


She's my favorite candidate right now and the person I'll be voting for in the primaries and hopefully for the actual election.

I love that she's outspoken against war and a lot of the negative foreign involvement the US has had for years, and has the gall to face all of Washington with said mindset when clearly she's in the minority. She seems to have a good head on her shoulders and isn't going to back down easily. 

She also has a pretty damn stellar environmental track record too (one of my main concerns), Hawaii is one of the more sustainable states in the nation, and she's co-signed on acts involving more research and protection on coral reefs, and various green energy policies. I like how she's a realist with it too, she didn't show outright support for the green new deal because it was overly vague (which I agree with), instead going with ideas like the new bill she introduced which would cut tax breaks on fossil fuel companies and aid in transitioning former workers of these companies to new jobs. 

So yeah, I'm all in on her at this point, even if there are other things I may not agree with.


----------



## CamillePunk

Actually libertarians are attracted to Tulsi (heheh) because of her anti-war stance and general acceptance of the Democratic Party's illegals-over-Americans stance. If it came down to Tulsi and Trump (0% chance it does) then Tulsi would definitely get a lot of libertarian support.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump would stomp Tulsi so hard I don't think we'd see another woman presidential candidate for a generation. I'm sorry not sorry but it's the same old "Bernie woulda killed :trump" fantasy from people who desperately need to have such a fantasy to believe in 

The immigration stance every single Democrat has taken is a death sentence next year. Period

Tulsi Gabbard is George McGovern with tits. Tell me again how well McGovern did in 1972 with his anti-war stance and government programs for everybody campaign, against Richard Nixon who ran exactly the kind of campaign :trump is going to run next year :eyeroll

All of these Democratic candidates are McGovern. :trump is Nixon. The 2020 campaign will look very similar to the 1972 campaign, including :trump squashing whoever the Democrats nominate. You can see the shape of the election already. Patriotism, socialism isn't American, Americans first, Democrats hate you. There isn't a single Democratic candidate who can beat that with the things they're currently saying. Busing? _Busing?!_ Getting rid of private health insurance? Open borders? Free shit for everyone, paid for by massive tax increases on the middle class? Jesus, :trump is gonna get 400 electoral votes isn't he

The economy tanking is the only hope for defeat of the president. With the job hiring rebounding in June, who the fuck knows what is going to happen economically. A recession is inevitable. Even worse than 2008! Wait, no it's not. The economy will be super special awesome in 2020! Wait, the underlying data is turning bad again. Recession back on! Wait! Another better than expected month for jobs! Cancel again the already canceled and brought back and canceled and brought back imminent recession! :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Tell me again how well McGovern did in 1972 with his anti-war stance and government programs for everybody campaign, against Richard Nixon who ran exactly the kind of campaign :trump is going to run next year :eyeroll


It's quite a different country today than it was 50 years ago. :mj

ugh why is my dog barking brb


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> It's quite a different country today than it was 50 years ago. :mj
> 
> ugh why is my dog barking brb


If you say so :cudi 

(It's not really though, not in the context we're talking about ie a presidential election)

Tulsi reminds me of Luap Nor, great passion among the handful of adherents who eventually become annoying as fuck with their hero worship, and their hero never goes anywhere in the end; the grand internet proclamations of their heroic appeal were delusions. The only real difference between them is she offers doctrinaire left-wing positions and Nor offered doctrinaire libertarian positions


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> If you say so :cudi
> 
> (It's not really though, not in the context we're talking about ie a presidential election)


No it's objectively a much different country as demographics has massively shifted in a way that overwhelmingly favors Democrats. That's not to consider the tens of millions illegal immigrants in the country (or we can believe that 12 million number hasn't changed in 12 years and we can determine with complete accuracy how many people illicitly come in/out of the country :nerd, of course illegal immigrants don't vote and it's just a coincidence that Democrats are also staunchly opposed to any voter ID legislation or a citizenship question on the census. :nerd:

We both know you don't like Tulsi because you are a warmongering neocon. :armfold


----------



## Draykorinee

Its objectively incorrect to suggest the country is kinda the same as it was 50 years ago.


----------



## NascarStan

I'm all aboard the Tulsi train, she is someone who does not resort to divisive tactics and reaches out to people and her policies are defintely left wing but she is a not a fucking lunatic and reasonable. 

As for the rest, Yang is alright but he has zero chance of getting the nomination (Tulsi is slim too but she can realistically get the moderate for in the primary and hold her own) rest of them are straight garbage imo


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

why do people keep insisting yang is "alright"

i mean he seems like a cool guy in interviews and doesn't engage in robotic pandering like most democrats... but the guy's proposal would be the death of us all :lol


----------



## Stephen90

Arkham258 said:


> Tulsi is an idiot who wants to take everyone's guns. And her approach to foreign affairs is just to stay out of everything, which doesn't always work.
> 
> Hearing her criticize Trump's approach with Iran is hilarious to me as she has no idea what's really going on but talks like she's some kind of foreign policy expert, but that's all the Dems. They act smart, but are all clueless


That's hilarious since Tulsi is a served in the military and Trump is a known draft dodger.


----------



## Chan Hung

Here's a question does anybody in the world deserve to have a billion dollars this was a question that was asked to one of the democratic candidates named Kristen gillibrand from New York she's a senator who says nobody should have that kind of money


----------



## Miss Sally

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Tulsi would win and it wouldn't be close.
> 
> I have a lot of conservative friends who LOVE Tulsi Gabbard more than any other candidate(including Trump)
> 
> I don't know how much the turnout from liberals would be (most Dem friends I have love either Harris or Sanders) but I can easily say that Gabbard is the closest thing I have seen to a moderate (in terms of popularity) I have seen in a very long time


I think Tulsi would be the Democrat version of Reagan. (Not in policy but in the sense of straight up winning over nearly every state.)

But as Tater said, we aren't allowed nice things. 

That's because nobody wants real change. Sure people say they want a Woman or non-white President but only if they're exactly like the other Presidents who came before them. :laugh:


----------



## 2 Ton 21




----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1147167492026093572
:sip


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Miss Sally said:


> I think Tulsi would be the Democrat version of Reagan. (Not in policy but in the sense of straight up winning over nearly every state.)


Let's be honest here. Politics nowadays is so divided and partisan that most likely nobody will pull a Reagan and win almost every state ever again.

The red states will stay red regardless of who the Presidential nominees for the parties are. The blue states will stay blue regardless of who the Presidential nominees for the parties are.

The days of someone winning 49 states in a crushing landslide are fucking over. You could put an (R) next to a convicted murderer still covered in the blood of his latest victim and he'd still carry the entire South comfortably, maybe excepting Florida if a good enough chunk of its populations are on meth-fuelled naked rampages at Walmart that day.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148394878872805376
The corporations strike back. :lauren


----------



## Miss Sally

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/07/us/afrofuture-fest-tiny-jag.html

*A Detroit music festival that originally charged white people double the admission that it charged people of color has changed its pricing structure.

The festival, Afrofuture Fest, initially charged people of color $20 and “non-POC” $40, according to the ticketing details on its Eventbrite page early Sunday. Now all tickets will be $20.

The decision to change course came after threats and harassment, said Adrienne Ayers, who goes by Numi and is the founder and co-director of Afrofuture Youth. She said that after right-wing websites highlighted the pricing, people called and harassed the owner of the venue, and sent messages to her co-director’s family.

The pricing structure also led one performer, Jillian Graham, a rapper whose stage name is Tiny Jag, to drop out of the event.

“I just felt as if the wool was over my eyes,” said Ms. Graham, who identifies as biracial. “It was soon followed with just an overall recognition that this is just wrong. It wouldn’t matter what race I was, I knew that I didn’t agree with it.”

Ms. Ayers said no other artists had backed out. “Everybody else is fine,” she said. “Everybody on the lineup has expressed extreme support of everything that we’re doing.”

She announced the new ticket pricing on Sunday afternoon “for safety, not anything else but that.” She added that there would now be “a suggested donation for non-people of color.”

She said the previous price structure had been created because “events often designed for marginalized black and brown communities can easily be co-opted by those with cultural, monetary and class privileges.”

“Our goal is to ensure that the youth of our community can participate in the building of a more just society, one that specifically promotes equity over equality,” she added.

Fifty percent of the profits from the Aug. 3 festival, which will take place at Detroit’s Feedom Freedom farm, will go toward Afrofuture Youth, a sponsored program of the nonprofit Allied Media Projects.

The program focuses on young black people in Detroit, and aims to give middle- and high-school students the space and resources to build a “new, more equitable world,” according to its website. Ms. Ayers said the program currently benefits 10 children.

The festival is expected to attract at least 200 people, and as of Sunday had sold 71 tickets, Ms. Ayers said. She said that all 13 tickets initially set aside for white people were sold.

“There were a lot of white people who were telling us they didn’t mind paying extra,” she said. “Quite a few.”

The old pricing structure was “discriminatory” and could have resulted in lawsuits, said Tiffany Ellis, a Detroit-based civil rights lawyer. But, she said, private organizations have some leeway to choose who they are going to do business with and how they do that business.

“We have constitutional rights as an individual, and the 14th Amendment provides that we cannot be discriminated against because all people are created equal,” Ms. Ellis said Sunday. “When it’s a private actor, those protections are different.”

Ms. Ellis said the public relations fallout from the organization’s pricing would “tank” the idea much faster than any legal ramifications.

Despite the controversy, , there are already plans for another festival next year.

“The farm Feedom Freedom is in full support,” Ms. Ayers said. “Our supporters are all here. I want to make it clear that a lot of people in the city of Detroit, especially the Detroit art scene, are supportive of what we’re doing.”*

It's about time we started promoting equity over equality. Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others and that must mean discrimination must happen to thwart the privileged class.

It's sad this event had to give into the demands of white supremacists in this fucking racist country. :gun:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Why stop at $40? Why not just charge $500? Was the goal to keep white people out entirely or to punish and shame those who dare have a good time?



> “There were a lot of white people who were telling us they didn’t mind paying extra,” she said. “Quite a few.”


The force has a strong influence on the weak minded.


----------



## krtgolfing

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Why stop at $40? Why not just charge $500? Was the goal to keep white people out entirely or to punish and shame those who dare have a good time?
> 
> 
> 
> The force has a strong influence on the weak minded.


Just imagine the outrage if a music festival wanted to charge people of color more than people not of color...


----------



## Draykorinee

You dont beat racism by being racist.


----------



## deepelemblues

How silly these people are

Refusing to give up your seat on the bus or not sit at the "whites only" lunch counter at Woolworth's this ain't


----------



## skypod

It's almost like we've went back to 1920 with this one event that happened to a small amount of people. In fact the more I think about it, America is basically under Jim Crow laws but for white people. It's now people of colour that have the privilege and all the power.


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> It's almost like we've went back to 1920 with this one event that happened to a small amount of people. In fact the more I think about it, America is basically under Jim Crow laws but for white people. It's now people of colour that have the privilege and all the power.


Hey man, they're still being oppressed for being white because you know a voluntary capitalist venture is the same as forced discrimination. 

I'm not a fan of them doing this, but by no means is harmful to anyone. 

At most it's a little unfair. 

Oh wait. White people getting a taste of some unfair treatment that they don't even have to be forced into experiencing. No tears from me.


----------



## skypod

Reaper said:


> Hey man, they're still being oppressed for being white because you know a voluntary capitalist venture is the same as forced discrimination.
> 
> I'm not a fan of them doing this, but by no means is harmful to anyone.
> 
> At most it's a little unfair.
> 
> Oh wait. White people getting a taste of some unfair treatment that they don't even have to be forced into experiencing. No tears from me.



I think the situation is dicky but these stories are pushed to add to fears of a white genocide and white/black role reversal that has the Proud Boys shaking in their beds at night.

Until people of colour are OVER represented in government then everything else is incredibly small and petty. The first Black president was elected and only 11 years later there's a narrative that they're on their way to getting more than a REAL American (read; white, Christian, hetero, gun owning,)


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> I think the situation is dicky but these stories are pushed to add to fears of a white genocide and white/black role reversal that has the Proud Boys shaking in their beds at night.
> 
> Until people of colour are OVER represented in government then everything else is incredibly small and petty. The first Black president was elected and only 11 years later there's a narrative that they're on their way to getting more than a REAL American (read; white, Christian, hetero, gun owning,)


I agree. I don't think this shit should be happening at all - but in the grand scheme of things, stupid shit like this does not suggest that any form of dystopian nightmare for white people at the hands of minorities is coming. 

The real dystopia for white people exists at the hands of the major corporations that work endlessly to keep the difference between the rich and poor as well as convince them that their current living nightmare is a consequence of poor choices and not because of the corporatist culture of the USA. Something they're completely unwilling to see as a major problem. 

But hey, burnt flags, NFL players not kneeling, over-priced concert tickets, asylum seekers spell the REAL incoming doom for them.

Not the fact that real dystopian nightmare is having to pay $1200 for a Bunk Bed, or $4000 bucks for your insulin thanks to capitalism gone wrong.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> It's almost like we've went back to 1920 with this one event that happened to a small amount of people. In fact the more I think about it, America is basically under Jim Crow laws but for white people. It's now people of colour that have the privilege and all the power.


you probably wouldn't be this facetious if the shoe were on the other foot and it were black customers being charged more. (Y)


----------



## deepelemblues

No one forces blacks to want to eat at the Woolworth's "whites only" lunch counter. What's the big deal? The food at the "whites only" lunch counter isn't that great anyway, not like it's hurting them that they can't eat there. They have plenty of places to go, you know, places that are for their kind. Why do blacks get so excited over this stuff? It doesn't matter. At most it's a little unfair. Now you just know this will really get that uppity type of blacks - you know the ones I mean, the troublemakers - having a ruckus over nothing, as they do. No sympathy from me. Gives me a chuckle when they get upset, really. 

- Random peckerwood, circa 1960


----------



## DesolationRow

http://emersonpolling.reportablenew...-trump-closes-the-gap-in-the-general-election



> July National Poll: Biden Extends Lead in Democratic Primary, Trump Closes the Gap in the General Election
> 
> The first Democratic debate has shaken up the race for the Democratic nomination. Compared to June’s national poll, former Vice President Joe Biden extended his lead, Sen. Bernie Sanders lost ground, Sen. Kamala Harris doubled her support, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren held steady. Despite Biden losing 4 points of his support from 34% to 30%, he extended his lead in the Democratic primary from 7 points in June to 15 points, as his main rival, Sanders dropped 12 points to 15% from his June number of 27%. Harris saw her numbers improve 8 points to 15%, and Warren ticked up one point from June to 15% of the vote, creating a three-way tie for second. The data was collected July 6-8 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.4%.
> 
> Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters said they followed the Democratic debates. A plurality of viewers, 30%, said Harris had the best debate performance. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters said Biden performed the best, 13% said Warren, and 10% chose Sanders. Conversely, when asked which candidate had the worst performance, 19% of voters said Biden, 15% said Sanders, and 13% said O’Rourke performed the worst.
> 
> Of those who watched all, some, or followed the media coverage of the debates, Biden receives 25% of the Democratic primary vote, but of those who did not watch/follow debates, he receives 39% of the vote. Conversely, Harris receives 18% of the vote among those who watched all, some or followed the debates, and 11% of the vote among those who did not. Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling, said “these numbers suggest that the Democratic field is still fluid and that Biden will need to improve upon his performance to maintain his lead”.
> 
> Forty-one percent (41%) of voters said they will definitely vote for their chosen candidate, but the majority, 60%, say they could still be persuaded by another candidate. Sanders and Biden continue to have the most loyal supporters as 55% of Sanders supporters will definitely vote for him and 51% of Biden supporters will definitely for him. Comparatively, 37% of Harris and 26% of Warren supporters have made a definitive choice of which candidate to support.
> 
> Biden leads among all age groups. This is a departure from previous Emerson polls, where Sanders has consistently lead among the youngest group of voters. Among 18-29 year olds, 26% support Biden, 24% support Sanders, and 10% support Warren. Among 30-49 year olds Biden leads with 23%, followed by Sanders with 19%, and Harris and Warren with 16%. With voters 50-64 year olds, Biden leads with 36%, followed by Harris with 22%, Warren with 15%, and Sanders with 8%. With those over the age of 65, Biden received 38%, followed by Warren with 19%, Harris with 14%, and Sanders with 8%.
> 
> President Trump’s approval has ticked up one point from the June national poll, with 44% approval and 48% disapproval. In June, the President’s approval was at 43% to 48% disapproval. Trump continues to hold a strong lead in the Republican primary with 91% of the vote against former Gov. Bill Weld at 9%.
> 
> Since the June poll, Trump has seen his head to head numbers improve against all his Democratic rivals. He is now leading Warren, Buttigieg, and Harris 51%-49% each after trailing them all last month. Sanders leads Trump 51%-49% and Biden 53% to 47%. Kimball says, “It looks like Trump was a winner from the Democratic debate, as his head-to-heads tightened by about 5 points against all the leading Democratic candidates.”
> 
> The most important issue for voters in deciding their vote for President is the economy at 26%. Healthcare is the second most important issue for voters at 21%, followed by immigration at 17%, and social issues at 16%. There is a party divide however, as among Democratic primary voters, 29% chose healthcare as the most important issue, followed by social issues at 22% and the economy at 14%. With Republican primary voters, 42% chose the economy as the most important issue followed by immigration at 25%.
> 
> Caller ID
> 
> The national Emerson College poll was conducted July 6-8, 2019 under the Supervision of Professor Spencer Kimball. The sample consisted of registered voters, n=1,100, with a Credibility Interval (CI) similar to a poll’s margin of error (MOE) of +/- 2.9 percentage points. The data was weighted by age, region, income, and education based on 2016 turnout modeling. It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age, party breakdown, ethnicity and region carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced. Data was collected using both an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only (n=724) and an online panel provided by Amazon Turk (n=376).


----------



## CamillePunk

18% said Biden performed the best. :heston

My time is up.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/07/us/afrofuture-fest-tiny-jag.html
> 
> *A Detroit music festival that originally charged white people double the admission that it charged people of color has changed its pricing structure.
> 
> The festival, Afrofuture Fest, initially charged people of color $20 and “non-POC” $40, according to the ticketing details on its Eventbrite page early Sunday. Now all tickets will be $20.
> 
> The decision to change course came after threats and harassment, said Adrienne Ayers, who goes by Numi and is the founder and co-director of Afrofuture Youth. She said that after right-wing websites highlighted the pricing, people called and harassed the owner of the venue, and sent messages to her co-director’s family.
> 
> The pricing structure also led one performer, Jillian Graham, a rapper whose stage name is Tiny Jag, to drop out of the event.
> 
> “I just felt as if the wool was over my eyes,” said Ms. Graham, who identifies as biracial. “It was soon followed with just an overall recognition that this is just wrong. It wouldn’t matter what race I was, I knew that I didn’t agree with it.”
> 
> Ms. Ayers said no other artists had backed out. “Everybody else is fine,” she said. “Everybody on the lineup has expressed extreme support of everything that we’re doing.”
> 
> She announced the new ticket pricing on Sunday afternoon “for safety, not anything else but that.” She added that there would now be “a suggested donation for non-people of color.”
> 
> She said the previous price structure had been created because “events often designed for marginalized black and brown communities can easily be co-opted by those with cultural, monetary and class privileges.”
> 
> “Our goal is to ensure that the youth of our community can participate in the building of a more just society, one that specifically promotes equity over equality,” she added.
> 
> Fifty percent of the profits from the Aug. 3 festival, which will take place at Detroit’s Feedom Freedom farm, will go toward Afrofuture Youth, a sponsored program of the nonprofit Allied Media Projects.
> 
> The program focuses on young black people in Detroit, and aims to give middle- and high-school students the space and resources to build a “new, more equitable world,” according to its website. Ms. Ayers said the program currently benefits 10 children.
> 
> The festival is expected to attract at least 200 people, and as of Sunday had sold 71 tickets, Ms. Ayers said. She said that all 13 tickets initially set aside for white people were sold.
> 
> “There were a lot of white people who were telling us they didn’t mind paying extra,” she said. “Quite a few.”
> 
> The old pricing structure was “discriminatory” and could have resulted in lawsuits, said Tiffany Ellis, a Detroit-based civil rights lawyer. But, she said, private organizations have some leeway to choose who they are going to do business with and how they do that business.
> 
> “We have constitutional rights as an individual, and the 14th Amendment provides that we cannot be discriminated against because all people are created equal,” Ms. Ellis said Sunday. “When it’s a private actor, those protections are different.”
> 
> Ms. Ellis said the public relations fallout from the organization’s pricing would “tank” the idea much faster than any legal ramifications.
> 
> Despite the controversy, , there are already plans for another festival next year.
> 
> “The farm Feedom Freedom is in full support,” Ms. Ayers said. “Our supporters are all here. I want to make it clear that a lot of people in the city of Detroit, especially the Detroit art scene, are supportive of what we’re doing.”*
> 
> It's about time we started promoting equity over equality. Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others and that must mean discrimination must happen to thwart the privileged class.
> 
> It's sad this event had to give into the demands of white supremacists in this fucking racist country. :gun:


Sounds totally fair. Double the price, a whole 13 tickets set aside from at least an estimated 200. Crappy move.

I mean sure it's a small pvt event, they can do what they want. The real concern is the further sense of division the message sends and the fuel it will provide for more victim-complex extremists.


----------



## deepelemblues

I wonder when the Democratic debates will turn into ModerateMANIA! since the main result of the first two was to lift the president's numbers into a virtual tie with all the major Democratic candidates except Joe, and now Joe's "lead" is precisely what Hillary's was on the eve of her non-coronation :lol


----------



## Reaper

Biden is a MUCH worse candidate than Trump for minorities given the motherfucker co-authored Clinton's prison industrial complex. He literally created the New Jim Crow and that should be more than fucking enough to disqualify him for presidency as much as David Duke. 

If he gets in, then fuck Americans (especially the minorities) because they have literally created the monster that creates and supports the institutions that oppress them.


----------



## deepelemblues

Chiquita Kruschev-Cortez is upset that Nancy Palsi gave her prominent committee and subcomittee assignments that cut into her Facebook Live, Twitter, and crying in front of empty parking lots time :heston

It's gonna be so funny when Chiquita gets primaried and BTFO'd next year, her Amazon deal killing has really hurt her popularity in her district, as has her running on a promise to be more engaged with her constituents and her and her staff being even worse at it than the Democrat she beat last primary


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> Chiquita Kruschev-Cortez is upset that Nancy Palsi gave her prominent committee and subcomittee assignments that cut into her Facebook Live, Twitter, and crying in front of empty parking lots time :heston
> 
> It's gonna be so funny when Chiquita gets primaried and BTFO'd next year, her Amazon deal killing has really hurt her popularity in her district, as has her running on a promise to be more engaged with her constituents and her and her staff being even worse at it than the Democrat she beat last primary


Wait, you mean being in Congress requires work!?


----------



## deepelemblues

virus21 said:


> Wait, you mean being in Congress requires work!?


It's not all bribes and banging interns, shocking I know

They'd probably do a better job if all they did was take bribes and bang interns :draper2


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Interview of Tulsi with Bill Maher.

Couple of thoughts:

I like Tulsi, and have come away impressed with her. She seems smart, she is easy on the eyes, and doesnt seem to pander.

But unfortunately, I think the lack of pandering hurts her (when in reality it should be helping her.)

Maher brings up 4 talking points:

The debates formats: She handled this question fine, IMO, she didn't mud sling what a lot of people have said about her in that she got unfair time, and was stopped on purpose.

But then it gets into the shit show: Maher brings up Putin and Russia, because people still talk about Russia and the election... she answered it, but to me, didn't do the extremism side that people like to hear (Maher even says how she doesn't cater to the "2% on twitter")

He asks her about being anti-war, and honestly, she didn't change her stance, at least she is consistent.

And then he bring up impeachment, I don't know why this was important. I mean she starts the interview saying "We don't talk about climate change, or health care, or the things in the debate that are important because we only get a minute. But then he wastes her 8 minutes asking 2 questions about Trump... I honestly don't know much more about her as a democratic candidate after watching this interview, except that she isn't obsessed with Trump.

It's funny how much a lot of Democrats seem to prefer the mud slingers compared to someone who thinks the issues are supposed to be talked about.

I think someone said it in this thread, the most ironic thing about Tulsi is that her biggest support may be from Tucker Carlson, strange how that works


----------



## Miss Sally

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Interview of Tulsi with Bill Maher.
> 
> Couple of thoughts:
> 
> I like Tulsi, and have come away impressed with her. She seems smart, she is easy on the eyes, and doesnt seem to pander.
> 
> But unfortunately, I think the lack of pandering hurts her (when in reality it should be helping her.)
> 
> Maher brings up 4 talking points:
> 
> The debates formats: She handled this question fine, IMO, she didn't mud sling what a lot of people have said about her in that she got unfair time, and was stopped on purpose.
> 
> But then it gets into the shit show: Maher brings up Putin and Russia, because people still talk about Russia and the election... she answered it, but to me, didn't do the extremism side that people like to hear (Maher even says how she doesn't cater to the "2% on twitter")
> 
> He asks her about being anti-war, and honestly, she didn't change her stance, at least she is consistent.
> 
> And then he bring up impeachment, I don't know why this was important. I mean she starts the interview saying "We don't talk about climate change, or health care, or the things in the debate that are important because we only get a minute. But then he wastes her 8 minutes asking 2 questions about Trump... I honestly don't know much more about her as a democratic candidate after watching this interview, except that she isn't obsessed with Trump.
> 
> It's funny how much a lot of Democrats seem to prefer the mud slingers compared to someone who thinks the issues are supposed to be talked about.
> 
> I think someone said it in this thread, the most ironic thing about Tulsi is that her biggest support may be from Tucker Carlson, strange how that works


They waste time on stupid stuff and Trump, Maher isn't a complete idiot but his Trump boner is moronic. 

How is it only Tucker actually asks her what she believes, debates her on that, let's her talk and explain herself and get her message out? He's a Trump supporter yet Tulsi only gets any half way decent coverage from him. :laugh:

You're right if she went in with pandering she'd be loved by the Democrats, sadly that pandering may make her look like Harris.

My gosh, we live in an era where we have real legit Politicians who stand for something yet the Public want a pandering establishment dipshit who will give them the same ol, same ol. :frown2:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

AOC insinuating Pelosi is racist for daring to criticize her. God bless this woman's heart.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/11/aoc-c...isrespectful-for-singling-out-women-of-color/



> “When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez told the Washington Post.
> 
> “But the persistent singling out — it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful — the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”


Let the games begin.


----------



## deepelemblues

Neocons going gaga over this Brit frigate warning off some Iranian speedboats

Hey you want a war, fine. Iran is an enemy that has been committing acts of war against multiple countries for 40 years. Pass war taxes, war production, a draft, the works then. Everyone has to sacrifice to marshal the full strength of the nation. Iran wouldnt last long in the face of that overwhelming power. But you dont see anybody who wants a war with Iran who wants all that, do you? Seems like these people are more interested in fighting wars than winning them


----------



## Kabraxal

Berzerker's Beard said:


> AOC insinuating Pelosi is racist for daring to criticize her. God bless this woman's heart.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2019/07/11/aoc-c...isrespectful-for-singling-out-women-of-color/
> 
> 
> 
> Let the games begin.


AOC is the perfect representative of the twitter "progressive": a complete joke. 

I never thought the progressives could trot out a more idiotic and worse person than we've had in Pelosi and Warren, but noooo... they found one. This is what we get for listening to the extreme vocal minority... this idiot that makes Trump, Pelosi, McConnel, and Warren look like fucking geniuses.


----------



## deepelemblues

Kabraxal said:


> AOC is the perfect representative of the twitter "progressive": a complete joke.
> 
> I never thought the progressives could trot out a more idiotic and worse person than we've had in Pelosi and Warren, but noooo... they found one. This is what we get for listening to the extreme vocal minority... this idiot that makes Trump, Pelosi, McConnel, and Warren look like fucking geniuses.


Cocaine Mitch _is _a fuckin genius :cudi

NBC spends thousands on a hit piece about how some of his ancestors owned slaves and he BTFOs them in a two sentence response :maury


----------



## MrMister

Miss Sally said:


> They waste time on stupid stuff and Trump, Maher isn't a complete idiot but his Trump boner is moronic.
> 
> How is it only Tucker actually asks her what she believes, debates her on that, let's her talk and explain herself and get her message out? He's a Trump supporter yet Tulsi only gets any half way decent coverage from him. :laugh:
> 
> You're right if she went in with pandering she'd be loved by the Democrats, sadly that pandering may make her look like Harris.
> 
> My gosh, we live in an era where we have real legit Politicians who stand for something yet the Public want a pandering establishment dipshit who will give them the same ol, same ol. :frown2:


Nah Bill Maher is kind of an idiot. I like his show, but he's pretty dumb. His Trump hate is probably part show. He's pandering to his crowd. He probably does legitimately hate Trump though.

There's been times I was shocked a man of his age and the line of work he does and he wasn't aware of X. I can't think of specific examples right now because I'm dumb too. :brady6


----------



## Miss Sally

Berzerker's Beard said:


> AOC insinuating Pelosi is racist for daring to criticize her. God bless this woman's heart.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2019/07/11/aoc-c...isrespectful-for-singling-out-women-of-color/
> 
> 
> 
> Let the games begin.


AOC is getting sued for blocking people on Twitter, the argument is that if Trump cannot, no Politician can since Political discourse even on a private platform like Twitter is Public discourse in the eyes of the law. 

There's some rumblings going on with how Social Media does things, in a few years might see some big changes.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

MrMister said:


> Nah Bill Maher is kind of an idiot. I like his show, but he's pretty dumb. His Trump hate is probably part show. He's pandering to his crowd. He probably does legitimately hate Trump though.
> 
> There's been times I was shocked a man of his age and the line of work he does and he wasn't aware of X. I can't think of specific examples right now because I'm dumb too. :brady6


I think he's actually moving closer to the center if last episode of Real Time is any indication. He seemed totally put off by the current democratic shit show. He called out Joy Reid on her hypocrisy a few times as well. Had her steering course all night. I was shocked to see it myself.


----------



## DesolationRow

Nancy Pelosi is finding herself devoured. :woo

http://www.npr.org/2019/07/11/74072...squad-as-internal-party-tensions-get-personal



> Pelosi Clashes With Progressive 'Squad' As Internal Party Tensions Get Personal
> 
> July 11, 20193:20 PM ET
> 
> Updated at 4:04 p.m. ET
> 
> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is trying to tamp down an ongoing squabble between a quartet of progressive members and a large bloc of moderate Democrats. The effort comes after a leading progressive said the speaker was being "disrespectful" of the group, dubbed "the squad," and cited race as a factor.
> 
> Tensions inside the caucus have simmered for some time, but the internal party fight spilled out into the open during debate over a border spending bill that passed the House last month. Pelosi allowed a vote on a Senate-passed version of the bill, without a series of amendments negotiated by progressives to protect migrants, at the behest of more moderate members.
> 
> Pelosi tried to downplay the conflict Thursday and urged her members to stay out of the fray.
> 
> "We respect the value of every member of our caucus," Pelosi told reporters. "The diversity of it all is a wonderful thing. Diversity is our strength. Unity is our power."
> 
> But a day earlier, one of the four — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — made it personal, suggesting in an interview with the Washington Post that Pelosi was deliberately targeting the four because of their race.
> 
> "When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm's distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood," Ocasio-Cortez told the Post. "But the persistent singling out ... it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful ... the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color."
> 
> Ocasio-Cortez said Thursday that she didn't have anything to add regarding the controversy and that it is "kind of over," but many members and staff remain frustrated, saying the freshman's comments about race have angered many Democrats who say they went too far.
> 
> The other three members of the "squad" are Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.
> 
> Pelosi's efforts to head off further public criticism come after the fight over the border spending bill spilled into a spat on social media. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, pointedly attacked a bipartisan negotiating group known as the Problem Solvers Caucus for pushing for a vote on the Senate aid bill.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1144324911583780864


> The fight escalated when the chief of staff to Ocasio-Cortez compared moderates to segregationists in a tweet that has since been deleted. The tweet suggested that two moderate groups, the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats, be called New Southern Democrats, a group of Democrats who once supported segregation. He added, "They certainly seem hell bent to do to black and brown people today what the old Southern Democrats did [in] the 40s."
> 
> The staffer continued to argue on Twitter that the moderate wing may not be racist but was still backing policies that could harm communities of color.
> 
> Those comments enraged moderates and members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., the vice chair of the moderate New Democrat Coalition and a member of the CBC, released a statement condemning the remarks.
> 
> "To even insinuate that I, or any other member of the New Dems, would promote policies that are racist and hateful or ones that would negatively impact communities of color is deeply offensive and couldn't be further from the truth," Sewell said.
> 
> The controversy was so widespread that Pelosi addressed the issue directly Wednesday in a weekly closed-door meeting for all House Democrats.
> 
> She called on members to have "some level of respect and sensitivity" to the "individual experience" that each member brings to Congress, according to a transcript of her remarks provided by a source in the room.
> 
> Members and staff have privately questioned whether the staffer should be fired, a topic Ocasio-Cortez said has not been raised with her directly.
> 
> "No one has texted me," Ocasio-Cortez said after a lengthy vote series on the House floor. "I've been on the floor for what, an hour voting, and nobody came up to me, nobody talked to me personally."
> 
> Asked if she thought the situation has been handled appropriately, Ocasio-Cortez said, "Of course not. Of course it's overblown."
> 
> Pelosi went on to tell members to channel their frustrations into fighting back against Senate Republicans, not one another. She also reminded progressives that Democrats need to stay unified if they want to keep their current House majority.
> 
> Pelosi worked to move on from the scuffle Thursday, dismissing the criticism and telling reporters that she has said all she is going to say on the topic.
> 
> "How they are interpreting and carrying it to another place is up to them, but I'm not going to be discussing it any further," Pelosi said.
> 
> "What I said in the caucus yesterday got an overwhelming response from my members, because they know what the facts are and what we are responding to."
> 
> Sewell later told reporters that internal battles like this distract Democrats from their legislative agenda.
> 
> "I think we should realize who our real opponents are here," Sewell said. "It is important that we resolve any kind of conflicts internally and not publicly."




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149387511610974208


----------



## Kabraxal

DesolationRow said:


> Nancy Pelosi is finding herself devoured. :woo
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2019/07/11/74072...squad-as-internal-party-tensions-get-personal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1144324911583780864
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149387511610974208


Man... the democratic party is going to implode if this keeps drawing from the typical twitter rhetoric. 

Maybe now more and more people will realise the D and R are both jokes and them being the only choices are only giving it to us right up the ass.


----------



## DesolationRow

Kabraxal said:


> Man... the democratic party is going to implode if this keeps drawing from the typical twitter rhetoric.
> 
> Maybe now more and more people will realise the D and R are both jokes and them being the only choices are only giving it to us right up the ass.


Lacy Clay is probably still furious that he felt compelled to conspire with those spreading the Ferguson hoax which led to many millions in property damage, nearly 30 businesses burned down, some people brutalized, a community devastated, and dozens arrested in the riots stemming from same. For if he had failed to do so he would have been "primaried" out of existence from the House of Representatives--so he seems determined to let off some steam in this instance, at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's expense.


----------



## Tater

AOC playing the race card was retarded. That said, Pelosi is an enemy of all things progressive and should be treated as such when she calls for unity. Unity, my ass. You're the fucking problem.


----------



## CamillePunk

Let them fight. :trump2


----------



## MrMister

I can't imagine a better or more entertaining time to follow Murican politics. Maybe if the internet existed back when Burr and Hamilton wanted to murder each other, but this has to come close.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> AOC playing the race card was retarded. That said, Pelosi is an enemy of all things progressive and should be treated as such when she calls for unity. Unity, my ass. You're the fucking problem.


After her border camp photo op fiasco, I'd say she's retarded. Her support is waning and the only people who seem to buy into her are other virtue signaling race baiters. Her whole squad are as bad as Pelosi and the establishment Dems.

AOC doesn't even want to give money to the overwhelmed camps at the border. She's the type who would cut off her nose to spite her face.

This is why she needs higher office. :x


----------



## Kabraxal

Miss Sally said:


> After her border camp photo op fiasco, I'd say she's retarded. Her support is waning and the only people who seem to buy into her are other virtue signaling race baiters. Her whole squad are as bad as Pelosi and the establishment Dems.
> 
> AOC doesn't even want to give money to the overwhelmed camps at the border. She's the type who would cut off her nose to spite her face.
> 
> This is why she needs higher office. :x


I think she only has twitter/social media support at this point. Fitting, since she is the typical millennial social media type. 

Why do people keep voting in jokes?


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149423045024591874


----------



## yeahbaby!

AOC will be president one day, one you can all be proud of.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1147931322851241984
:lol 

Perhaps Tulsi Gabbard should wear that shirt at the next debate.


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1147931322851241984
> :lol
> 
> Perhaps Tulsi Gabbard should wear that shirt at the next debate.


The establishment and the MSM would have a meltdown because they are stuck up on decorum and civility but it would probably give her a great boost in the polls. Voters would be like, oh shit! Fuck yeah! That is awesome!

I know she's still an extreme long shot but she has seen a slight uptick in the polls since her debate performance. At the pace she's on, she might even qualify for the 3rd debate, which a lot of them won't. Go Tulsi go!


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> AOC will be president one day, one you can all be proud of.


The hate she gets here is all the proof you need that Americans are *far* behind in terms of knowing what's good for them compared to the RotW especially the more developed countries with regards to better education, healthcare, better working conditions, maternal leave, paternal leave, vacation time etc ... (The ones Americans refuse to acknowledge even exist). AOC is really just a run of the mill / average politician in those countries. 

Here, she's a social pariah. It's unfortunate, but very indicative of how far to the right Americans are and she's also doing well to expose how right wing Democrats are as well. If she accomplishes nothing in her career, I think if she can get some of the most right wing democrats kicked out of the party by sheer force of will, it'll be a good win.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Ocasio-Cortez Gets Head Stuck In Bucket, Journalists Rush To Explain Why It Was Actually A Genius Move*

https://babylonbee.com/news/ocasio-...explain-why-it-was-a-really-smart-thing-to-do



> WASHINGTON, D.C.—On Wednesday, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez somehow got her head stuck inside a bucket. She was heard yelling, “Who turned out the lights?” while repeatedly running full speed into walls. Republicans immediately pounced, using this as proof that Ocasio-Cortez is “kind of a dummy.” Many journalists, on the other hand, leaped to Ocasio-Cortez’s defense, saying her getting her head firmly wedged inside of a plastic bucket was further proof of her being an intelligent and dynamic politician.
> 
> “Most people don’t have her scientific curiosity and intelligence,” said MSNBC pundit Chris Hayes. “Someone incurious like Trump would never look at a bucket and ask ‘Could my head fit inside that?’ But Ocasio-Cortez dives into such questions head first.”
> 
> “She is making a bold statement,” said CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “The bucket on her head is from Walmart, and she is saying loud and clear that corporations have blinded us all.”
> 
> Many activists also defended Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter, though they seemed confused about exactly how to defend her, some talking about how buckets are important to society and others calling for the destruction of all buckets.
> 
> As for Ocasio-Cortez, she is doubling down and refusing to apologize, even though the incident caused a huge delay for the Capitol janitorial staff.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...33b002-a49b-11e9-b8c8-75dae2607e60_story.html



> During an appearance on the New York-based radio show “The Breakfast Club,” [Kamala] Harris was asked about Ocasio-Cortez’s assertion in a Washington Post interview that Pelosi had been “just outright disrespectful” with “the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”
> 
> “That’s not my experience with Nancy Pelosi,” said Harris, a Democratic presidential primary hopeful. “And I’ve known her and worked with her for years. I’ve known her to be very respectful of women of color and very supportive of them.”


https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...c-linked-justice-democrats-of-targeting-black



> “She’s only a woman of color when it’s convenient. None of the things she’s fought for aligned with communities of color and her group is funded only by elitist white liberals; she’s a puppet,” the top Democratic aide told The Hill in a phone call.
> 
> The aide then texted an image of a Goomba puppet from the Super Mario Bros. video game.
> 
> “I can’t tell you how pissed off people are” about the Justice Democrats, the aide added. “All these CBC members feel like they are under siege. But it’s offensive that these elitist white liberals feel like they can undermine the foundation of our party,” African American voters.


Looks like playtime is over for the Squad :draper2

I admit I am intrigued as to what America can learn from the rest of the world about depressed economic growth (Europe, South/Central America, Middle East, Africa), artificially high unemployment (Europe, South/Central America, Middle East, Africa), social division and civil wars (Africa, South/Central America, Middle East), totalitarianism (Central/East Asia, Middle East), and corruption (Africa, South/Central America, Middle East, Central/East Asia), the five main products of the rest of the world's politics. AOC is an expert in the first four so she's well-placed to instruct the country in their intricacies


----------



## Reaper

Kamala Harris is Pelosi's "Black Friend". 

They all have one. 

It's ok.

(I don't agree with a lot of nonsense AOC posts, but Kamala Harris coming to Pelosi's defense doesn't surprise me either. I can't forget that one time when Pelosi paraded a muslim guy on stage and told him to tell everyone that "Tell them you're Muslim". So she can get fucked for tokenization of minorities when it suits her needs too).


----------



## deepelemblues

We don't need Ms. Kruschev-Cortez to personally instruct us here on sowing racial division and animosity, we have several experts already

So we won't need to cut into her crying at the inhumanity of empty parking lots baking in the hot sun time, thank goodness


----------



## Reaper

I don't care about Nancy being a racist. Her racism is only damaging if she continues to get support from prison industrial complex supporters like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden which would allow Kamala to gain more power than she already has. 

https://afropunk.com/2019/01/kamala-harris-has-been-tough-on-black-people-not-crime/










It's not the individuals that are racist at this point, but the way law enforcement operates in America and that institution's methods that create massive racial disparities in our prisons is the one that needs to be torn down and built back up. 

If Pelosi does, or if AOC does it, or even if Trump does it ... Doesn't matter. The system is broken.


----------



## deepelemblues

Don't shed any tears now


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Don't shed any tears now


Ran out of arguments to take out of context and shit on with your usual flair of intellectual dishonesty I see.


----------



## Twilight Sky

> “She’s only a woman of color when it’s convenient. None of the things she’s fought for aligned with communities of color and her group is funded only by elitist white liberals; she’s a puppet,” the top Democratic aide told The Hill in a phone call.


I don't know about the elitist white liberals part, but the rest is right on the money. Many of them use this only to elevate themselves. As bad as it sounds, we black people can see an "Uncle Tom" from a mile away.


----------



## Stephen90

Remember when conservatives only said they were only one's getting banned.


----------



## Miss Sally

Stephen90 said:


> Remember when conservatives only said they were only one's getting banned.


Yeah, no. When mass demonotizing happened it was mentioned several times that non-right wing channels were targets because of the wording used by YouTube that's used to demonotize.

It's also been mentioned that recently Political channels, Commentary/News channels were also being hit but it's because YouTube wants people going to MSM channels. Right Wingers and Left leaning or bipartisan channels were hit for all different reasons, people are just getting caught in the crossfire.

Right Wingers and non-establishment Lefties were always getting banned, it just happened to be more Tighty Righties that were banned. :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

Joe Biden running as the most hawkish candidate in the race is remarkable given that Obama ran on non-interventionist rhetoric when he won in '08. :lol


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149813259349966849
Oh shit! Mike Gravel has qualified for the next debate! Bring on the Gravelanche baby! :mark:






:mark: :mark: :mark:


----------



## TheLooseCanon

CamillePunk said:


> Joe Biden running as the most hawkish candidate in the race is remarkable given that Obama ran on non-interventionist rhetoric when he won in '08. :lol


So the difference between the 2 is Biden is telling the truth before you vote for his neo-lib ass. I guess that counts for something......


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149878166883717120

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149893631358246912
:sodone


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Reaper said:


> The hate she gets here is all the proof you need that Americans are *far* behind in terms of knowing what's good for them compared to the RotW especially the more developed countries with regards to better education, healthcare, better working conditions, maternal leave, paternal leave, vacation time etc ... (The ones Americans refuse to acknowledge even exist).


It's simple.

It's all because more than half of the country (Rep voters and most of the Dem voters) still believe the 'Dems are leftists'. It all boils down to that.

Right wing voters won't support anyone labeled a Dem, and establishment Dem voters still believe everyone with a 'D' by their name, is on their team.

It's why Clinton voters can't stand Bernie. They believe Bernie is destroying the true 'left' party with his 'crazy' ideas.

It's why they hate Tulsi. These insane motherfuckers literally think she's a Right wing spy, yet acting like she's more to the left than their favs. WTF?

Now, for the good news. Right wing voters love Tulsi. Why you ask? Because she calls out what voters on the left and right have in common......the illegal wars we go in, destroying countries and lives in the process.

When people on the right and the establishment Dem voters finally come to, and see these 2 parties are not FOR YOU, they are 2 corporate funded parties that look out for their own pockets and their donors. They hide the fact with the term 'moderate', which is just the sweet spot for all politicians to go in and be center-right for corporate profit and war.

I'm with Jimmy Dore, we won't have change by voting within the Dem party. We need everyone to realize we all want healthcare as a right, we don't want wars, we all want to be left the fuck alone, and we shouldn't take no more shit from the 1 corrupted party dressed as 2 parties. REVOLUTION IS MY NAME!


And stop the 'woke' bullshit, establishment Dems started that because all they have to run on is identity politics. No one I know that is extreme left (including me) are 'PC/woke'. Treat people how you want to be treated is what I go by.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149878166883717120
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149893631358246912
> :sodone


I hope the first reply to that happens:

"Gravel: Hillary rigged Bernie Sanders in 2016 and Elizabeth Warren let her ⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡ *mic goes dead*"


----------



## Tater

I know perfectly well that Gravel has zero chance of winning but just seeing him on the stage one time ripping these neoliberal pieces of shit to shreds would be absolutely fucking glorious.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Tater said:


> I know perfectly well that Gravel has zero chance of winning but just seeing him on the stage one time ripping these neoliberal pieces of shit to shreds would be absolutely fucking glorious.


I read that supposedly Gravel has said if he got on a debate stage that he would endorse Tulsi lol. I would love to see that. Walking pimpbomb.


Edit: Found a Niko video where he says it:


----------



## DOPA

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149893631358246912
> :sodone


I'm going to like this guy . Calling out the ridiculous identity politics of the Democratic Party is always going to be a win for me.


----------



## PresidentGasman

TheLooseCanon said:


> It's simple.
> 
> It's all because more than half of the country (Rep voters and most of the Dem voters) still believe the 'Dems are leftists'. It all boils down to that.
> 
> Right wing voters won't support anyone labeled a Dem, and establishment Dem voters still believe everyone with a 'D' by their name, is on their team.
> 
> It's why Clinton voters can't stand Bernie. They believe Bernie is destroying the true 'left' party with his 'crazy' ideas.
> 
> It's why they hate Tulsi. These insane motherfuckers literally think she's a Right wing spy, yet acting like she's more to the left than their favs. WTF?
> 
> Now, for the good news. Right wing voters love Tulsi. Why you ask? Because she calls out what voters on the left and right have in common......the illegal wars we go in, destroying countries and lives in the process.
> 
> When people on the right and the establishment Dem voters finally come to, and see these 2 parties are not FOR YOU, they are 2 corporate funded parties that look out for their own pockets and their donors. They hide the fact with the term 'moderate', which is just the sweet spot for all politicians to go in and be center-right for corporate profit and war.
> 
> I'm with Jimmy Dore, we won't have change by voting within the Dem party. We need everyone to realize we all want healthcare as a right, we don't want wars, we all want to be left the fuck alone, and we shouldn't take no more shit from the 1 corrupted party dressed as 2 parties. REVOLUTION IS MY NAME!
> 
> 
> And stop the 'woke' bullshit, establishment Dems started that because all they have to run on is identity politics. No one I know that is extreme left (including me) are 'PC/woke'. Treat people how you want to be treated is what I go by.


agree 100% if Democrats keep acting unhinged and can't pull themselves back to the center then President Hitler gets a second term. we need someone Moderate who isn't far-left or far-right.


----------



## Miss Sally

TheLooseCanon said:


> I read that supposedly Gravel has said if he got on a debate stage that he would endorse Tulsi lol. I would love to see that. Walking pimpbomb.
> 
> 
> Edit: Found a Niko video where he says it:





DOPA said:


> I'm going to like this guy . Calling out the ridiculous identity politics of the Democratic Party is always going to be a win for me.


Tulsi is not only the best choice but the right choice. I trust her to accomplish more than Bernie or any other person around. 

She's immune to just about all forms of Identity Politics, she's unrelenting in her determination to help out the American people. She's exactly what this country needs.

What's crazy about the Democrats is the "The real Left Dems" aren't much different from the current ones, they're like "HEEEY we want free Healthcare blah blah.." Except it comes with a huge price, identity politics out the bum and the people spouting it are stupid, sociopaths who don't care about the country. They just want their own establishment. :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

PresidentGasman said:


> TheLooseCanon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple.
> 
> It's all because more than half of the country (Rep voters and most of the Dem voters) still believe the 'Dems are leftists'. It all boils down to that.
> 
> Right wing voters won't support anyone labeled a Dem, and establishment Dem voters still believe everyone with a 'D' by their name, is on their team.
> 
> It's why Clinton voters can't stand Bernie. They believe Bernie is destroying the true 'left' party with his 'crazy' ideas.
> 
> It's why they hate Tulsi. These insane motherfuckers literally think she's a Right wing spy, yet acting like she's more to the left than their favs. WTF?
> 
> Now, for the good news. Right wing voters love Tulsi. Why you ask? Because she calls out what voters on the left and right have in common......the illegal wars we go in, destroying countries and lives in the process.
> 
> When people on the right and the establishment Dem voters finally come to, and see these 2 parties are not FOR YOU, they are 2 corporate funded parties that look out for their own pockets and their donors. They hide the fact with the term 'moderate', which is just the sweet spot for all politicians to go in and be center-right for corporate profit and war.
> 
> I'm with Jimmy Dore, we won't have change by voting within the Dem party. We need everyone to realize we all want healthcare as a right, we don't want wars, we all want to be left the fuck alone, and we shouldn't take no more shit from the 1 corrupted party dressed as 2 parties. REVOLUTION IS MY NAME!
> 
> 
> And stop the 'woke' bullshit, establishment Dems started that because all they have to run on is identity politics. No one I know that is extreme left (including me) are 'PC/woke'. Treat people how you want to be treated is what I go by.
> 
> 
> 
> agree 100% if Democrats keep acting unhinged and can't pull themselves back to the center then President Hitler gets a second term. we need someone Moderate who isn't far-left or far-right.
Click to expand...

The centre doesn't work.


----------



## Tater

TheLooseCanon said:


> I'm with Jimmy Dore, we won't have change by voting within the Dem party. We need everyone to realize we all want healthcare as a right, we don't want wars, we all want to be left the fuck alone, and we shouldn't take no more shit from the 1 corrupted party dressed as 2 parties. REVOLUTION IS MY NAME!
> 
> 
> And stop the 'woke' bullshit, establishment Dems started that because all they have to run on is identity politics. No one I know that is extreme left (including me) are 'PC/woke'. Treat people how you want to be treated is what I go by.


The biggest problem with what gets called the left in the USA is that they are center right neoliberal corporatists who are socially liberal. They'll scream all day about identity politics and treating women/poc/lgbt/etc equally but what they really mean is that they equally want to screw over everyone.

Bring pro butt sex does not make one a leftist. Being pro worker and standing up to oligarchy is what makes one a leftist. And I am sick and fucking tired of these purity pony arguments. They call you a bigot for caring more about the working class, which includes everyone of every skin color, gender and who they want to fuck.

That's the entire game of estabishment Democrats. Bow down to your corporate masters and we'll let you have abortion rights. Fixing your poverty? Yeah you can go fuck yourself it that's what you want.



DOPA said:


> I'm going to like this guy . Calling out the ridiculous identity politics of the Democratic Party is always going to be a win for me.


DOPA! You've been missed round these parts. 



PresidentGasman said:


> agree 100% if Democrats keep acting unhinged and can't pull themselves back to the center then President Hitler gets a second term. we need someone Moderate who isn't far-left or far-right.


fpalm fpalm fpalm

This fucking retarded strategy is what got Trump elected in the first place. Keep at it if you want to keep Republicans in power. The only people who are die hard SJWs are the ones who keep fascists in power because the working class does not give a fuck about your abortions and gay weddings if they are being put in poverty to get it.

If you want to take the socially liberal bullshit out of the equation entirely, then you need to actually improve the lives of the working class. There will always be religious whackjobs who will vote solely to prevent gay marriage and abortion rights but there are even more who look that aside if it means financial security for them and their family.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://apnews.com/8834a0d59a4c432db6a726074da74d77



> *EPA restores broad use of pesticide opposed by beekeepers*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency will allow farmers to resume broad use of a pesticide over objections from beekeepers, citing private chemical industry studies that the agency says show the product does only lower-level harm to bees and wildlife.
> 
> Friday’s EPA announcement — coming after the agriculture industry accused the agency of unduly favoring honeybees — makes sulfoxaflor the latest bug- and weed-killer allowed by the Trump administration despite lawsuits alleging environmental or human harm. The pesticide is made by Corteva Agriscience, a spinoff created last month out of the DowDuPont merger and restructuring.
> 
> Honeybees pollinate billions of dollars of food crops annually in the United States, but agriculture and other land uses that cut into their supply of pollen, as well as pesticides, parasites and other threats, have them on a sharp decline. The University of Maryland said U.S. beekeepers lost 38 percent of their bee colonies last winter alone, the highest one-winter loss in the 13-year history of their survey.
> 
> Emails and other records obtained from the EPA through Freedom of Information Act litigation by the Sierra Club, and provided to The Associated Press, show sorghum growers in particular had pressed senior officials at the agency for a return to broad use of sulfoxaflor.
> 
> Sorghum growers regard honeybees as just another “non-native livestock” in the United States, lobbyist Joe Bischoff said in one 2017 email to agency officials, and by cutting threats to the bees, “EPA has chosen that form of agriculture over all others.”
> 
> A federal appeals court had ordered the EPA to withdraw approval for sulfoxaflor in 2015, ruling in a lawsuit brought by U.S. beekeeping groups that not enough was known about what it did to bees.
> 
> EPA Assistant Administrator Alexandra Dapolito Dunn said Friday that new industry studies that have not been made public show a low level of harm to bees and other creatures beyond the targeted crop pests.
> 
> Dunn said EPA’s newly reset rules for use of sulfoxaflor, such as generally prohibiting spraying of fruit and nut-bearing plants in bloom, when pollinators would be attracted to the flowers, would limit harm to bees. She called it “an important and highly effective tool for growers.”
> 
> Michele Colopy, program director of the Pollinator Stewardship Council, one of the beekeeping groups that had successfully sued to block sulfoxaflor, said the EPA limits weren’t enough to protect bees and other beneficial bugs whose numbers are declining.
> 
> “We understand farmers want to have every tool in their toolbox,” when it comes to curbing insects that damage crops. “But the ... pesticides are just decimating beneficial insects,” Colopy said.
> 
> An environmental group charged the EPA with sidestepping the usual public review in reapproving broader use of the pesticide.
> 
> “The Trump EPA’s reckless approval... without any public process is a terrible blow to imperiled pollinators,” said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program.
> 
> Separately, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced without fanfare on July 1 that it would stop collecting quarterly data on honeybee colonies, citing budget restrictions. Beekeepers and others used the data to track losses and growth in U.S. honeybee colonies.
> 
> Other Trump administration decisions have upheld market use of the weed-killing glyphosate, which is now the target of thousands of consumer lawsuits over alleged harm to people exposed to it, and shelved an Obama-era decision to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos as a threat to human health.
> 
> ___
> 
> This story has been corrected to show pesticide made by Corteva Agriscience, a company created last month in a spinoff from DowDuPont merger.


I mean fuck it, do we really need bees? ...We do? ...Well shit.


----------



## Miss Sally

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://apnews.com/8834a0d59a4c432db6a726074da74d77
> 
> 
> 
> I mean fuck it, do we really need bees? ...We do? ...Well shit.


Bees are essential to the world. I'd argue they're more important to the world than most humans are. 

Everyone babbles about Climate change but ignores the declining bee population and what it means.


----------



## virus21

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://apnews.com/8834a0d59a4c432db6a726074da74d77
> 
> 
> 
> I mean fuck it, do we really need bees? ...We do? ...Well shit.


Environmental *Protection* Agency? Yeah right


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Miss Sally said:


> Bees are essential to the world. I'd argue they're more important to the world than most humans are.
> 
> Everyone babbles about Climate change but ignores the declining bee population and what it means.


Yup, they are a keystone species. Remove them and the ecosystem comes tumbling down.


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bees are essential to the world. I'd argue they're more important to the world than most humans are.
> 
> Everyone babbles about Climate change but ignores the declining bee population and what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, they are a keystone species. Remove them and the ecosystem comes tumbling down.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole. 

Most of our major crops are wind pollinated.

Bees are important but let's not doom and gloom it with hyperbole.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

PresidentGasman said:


> agree 100% if Democrats keep acting unhinged and can't pull themselves back to the center then President Hitler gets a second term. we need someone Moderate who isn't far-left or far-right.


What did you agree with me on? I don't want 'moderate'. That doesn't exist anyways. It's just a term they made up to act like the country is in the 'middle', whatever that is.

Most of this country is actually left, more left than any elected politician. And most of them don't even know it, because they are too busy being brainwashed over identity politics that they fall in line with their party. I'm talking both Rep and Dems.

The biggest 'identity' issue has been class and always has been.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Draykorinee said:


> Hyperbole.
> 
> Most of our major crops are wind pollinated.
> 
> Bees are important but let's not doom and gloom it with hyperbole.


You're right. Our crops are mostly grains which are windblown, but there are a lot of other species out there that depend on food that comes from bee pollinated plants. Those animals go down in numbers due to food shortages and that triggers more and more and not just animals. Some plants only reproduce due to bees pollinating. Without them they go extinct. That's why I said keystone species.

I'm not saying humans can't survive somehow, but the ecosystem as we know it will be changed irrevocably.


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole.
> 
> Most of our major crops are wind pollinated.
> 
> Bees are important but let's not doom and gloom it with hyperbole.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. Our crops are mostly grains which are windblown, but there are a lot of other species out there that depend on food that comes from bee pollinated plants. Those animals go down in numbers due to food shortages and that triggers more and more and not just animals. Some plants only reproduce due to bees pollinating. Without them they go extinct. That's why I said keystone species.
> 
> I'm not saying humans can't survive somehow, but the ecosystem as we know it will be changed irrevocably.
Click to expand...

Humans would survive easily, we can manually populate the crops.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149814287340396547
:banderas

It's not about asylum. The Democrats spent most of this and last year telling us there was no crisis and that more people immigrated from the US to Mexico than the other way around. It's about political power. Importing people from Mexico, Central and South America is how the Democrats intend to seize it and never let go. That's why they refuse to talk about voter ID, that's why they don't want the citizenship question back on the census, and that's why they completely reject any discussion about voter fraud while simultaneously claiming our elections are insecure and under threat from foreign governments.


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149814287340396547
> :banderas
> 
> It's not about asylum. The Democrats spent most of this and last year telling us there was no crisis and that more people immigrated from the US to Mexico than the other way around. It's about political power. Importing people from Mexico, Central and South America is how the Democrats intend to seize it and never let go. That's why they refuse to talk about voter ID, that's why they don't want the citizenship question back on the census, and that's why they completely reject any discussion about voter fraud while simultaneously claiming our elections are insecure and under threat from foreign governments.


The concern that Mexican or Central American people will be a loyal Democratic constituency like AA doesn't really bare out with historical data.1st generation immigrants yes,but 3rd or 4th generation largely don't associate themselves with the country of their ancestry or at least only about the same as a Median White Non Latino. The main problem right now that you can't have a solution is 1 side is making policy based on the fear of effecting voter demographics and losing elections cause of it,another side is taking positions based on the belief it will win them voters. You also have a 3rd side the donor base who just look at migrants as a source of cheap labor and enjoy the stalemate we have. The donor base is very happy that the left and right have polar extreme opinions on how to solve things on this issue and you will have continue to unless a new Transformative politician enters the picture in the next decade


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149814287340396547
> :banderas
> 
> It's not about asylum. The Democrats spent most of this and last year telling us there was no crisis and that more people immigrated from the US to Mexico than the other way around. It's about political power. Importing people from Mexico, Central and South America is how the Democrats intend to seize it and never let go. That's why they refuse to talk about voter ID, that's why they don't want the citizenship question back on the census, and that's why they completely reject any discussion about voter fraud while simultaneously claiming our elections are insecure and under threat from foreign governments.


She needs to do another fake crying photo op. I said it before and will say it now, why do these people do everything in their power to help illegals and yet ignore our own citizens in worse positions? Why do they go out of their way for dreamers and whatever nonsense while US born blacks make up like 50% of the poorest in our Nation and receive little help? Why do they ignore the fact that millions of poor whites live on a dollar and change a day? We have so many people struggling yet they're ignored. 

Why does nobody consider these things? Why do people think Politicians like AOC are a benefit to our Citizens? Because they're not.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149814287340396547
> :banderas
> 
> It's not about asylum. The Democrats spent most of this and last year telling us there was no crisis and that more people immigrated from the US to Mexico than the other way around. It's about political power. Importing people from Mexico, Central and South America is how the Democrats intend to seize it and never let go. That's why they refuse to talk about voter ID, that's why they don't want the citizenship question back on the census, and that's why they completely reject any discussion about voter fraud while simultaneously claiming our elections are insecure and under threat from foreign governments.


I am not trying to argue with your or dispute your point here. I just want to add that there are plenty of a right wing capitalists who want those illegals working for cheap wages so they can increase their bottom lines.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> I am not trying to argue with your or dispute your point here. I just want to add that there are plenty of a right wing capitalists who want those illegals working for cheap wages so they can increase their bottom lines.


Of course, they're corporatists, and the Democratic Party is largely a corporatist party, much like the Republicans. But the Democratic Party also panders to women, minorities, and illegal immigrants, which is why those groups will always vote for them. Most people vote based on rhetoric.

They want the political power that importing the third world offers, but they don't necessarily want the economic agenda.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

"Let's just let capitalism do its thing here, there's nothing inherently immoral about it" ... meanwhile, capitalists go from selling books to making killing people more efficient. The system takes on the morality of the capitalist, but since the profit motive itself is deemed amoral, therefore those immoral can do what's immoral and hide behind claims of amorality.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> "Let's just let capitalism do its thing here, there's nothing inherently immoral about it".
> 
> Meanwhile capitalism as a system is the means though which the ruling elite continue to make killing people more and more efficient.


So Amazon is building Skynet?


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> So Amazon is building Skynet?


At least people knew that Skynet was innately evil. In the movies, Skynet was something that they never showed was deeply entrenched in people's lives. It was just robotics. The line was clear. 

This is worse. Most people support and defend Amazon and Microsoft - and the two companies are now so deeply entrenched in our daily lives, outside of complete boycott of how we live, there's not a damned thing we can do about it.


----------



## 7x0v

How is it that democrats can help illegal aliens with welfare, healthcare, driver's licenses, inform them of ICE raids, etc, and not go to jail? You're not suppose to aid illegals, it is against the law.

I guarantee if the illegal aliens coming here were white people, they would be immediately deported. But because they are brown, that's the whole difference. That's what stops the democrats from being arrested, the illegals from being deported, etc.

It would be 100% different if the illegal aliens were white. They would all be arrested instantly. But because they're brown, everyone's supposed to just ignore illegal immigration. You even get called racist for mentioning it.


----------



## Draykorinee

7x0v said:


> How is it that democrats can help illegal aliens with welfare, healthcare, driver's licenses, inform them of ICE raids, etc, and not go to jail? You're not suppose to aid illegals, it is against the law.
> 
> I guarantee if the illegal aliens coming here were white people, they would be immediately deported. But because they are brown, that's the whole difference. That's what stops the democrats from being arrested, the illegals from being deported, etc.
> 
> It would be 100% different if the illegal aliens were white. They would all be arrested instantly. But because they're brown, everyone's supposed to just ignore illegal immigration. You even get called racist for mentioning it.


Ygor?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150623379885449216
It's coming from inside the House.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> At least people knew that Skynet was innately evil. In the movies, Skynet was something that they never showed was deeply entrenched in people's lives. It was just robotics. The line was clear.
> 
> This is worse. Most people support and defend Amazon and Microsoft - and the two companies are now so deeply entrenched in our daily lives, outside of complete boycott of how we live, there's not a damned thing we can do about it.


Don't you remember when people were defending big tech a while ago before the last election? Defending all the money they sunk into Politicians?

The only reason people call out Google etc now is because they got caught putting out biased search results, fucking over Bernie etc. Before that nobody cared even though it was known Google worked with the US Government, shared it's user data, keeps profiles on people and had disgusting hiring and ethical issues within the company.

Even now that video that exposed Google for basically information manipulation and having a monopoly still hasn't convinced people that Google, Amazon etc are all evil companies. 

As long as these mega corporations are on the "right side" of identity politics, people will still defend them. Blind capitalist support isn't the only issue, it's people thinking these companies actually care about them.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150812179861594112
Rand.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150874920768819200
Sad to see progressives defend this woman and overlook her hatred for our country and her Islamist sympathies.


----------



## Draykorinee

I mean, does she have to answer every reporter who sticks a camera in her face and ask loaded questions.

Admittedly, she chould have just condemned it, but all this shit about her hating the country. Yuck.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> I mean, does she have to answer every reporter who sticks a camera in her face and ask loaded questions.
> 
> Admittedly, she chould have just condemned it, but all this shit about her hating the country. Yuck.


"Will you condemn the Antifa attack in Washington over the weekend?"

That's a loaded question?


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> I mean, does she have to answer every reporter who sticks a camera in her face and ask loaded questions.
> 
> Admittedly, she chould have just condemned it, but all this shit about her hating the country. Yuck.


Yeah let's pretend this is the only thing I've posted about her in here and my statement is based entirely on this one incident. :lol Who needs to be honest when you can virtue signal?


----------



## PresidentGasman

TheLooseCanon said:


> What did you agree with me on? I don't want 'moderate'. That doesn't exist anyways. It's just a term they made up to act like the country is in the 'middle', whatever that is.
> 
> Most of this country is actually left, more left than any elected politician. And most of them don't even know it, because they are too busy being brainwashed over identity politics that they fall in line with their party. I'm talking both Rep and Dems.
> 
> The biggest 'identity' issue has been class and always has been.


well the identity politics part, in terms of the economy im somewhere in between moderate and socialist, but i can agree with you on the part of pandering to a certain race is going to alienate other voters.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.apnews.com/c70a21451ac64c99af1525af0bd73a26



> *Harris blasts, and takes money from, Epstein’s law firm*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Kamala Harris bemoaned the influence of the powerful and connected elite last Tuesday when she called on top Justice Department officials to recuse themselves from any matter related to Jeffrey Epstein. She said their former law firm’s work on behalf of the financier accused of sexual abuse “calls into question the integrity of our legal system.”
> 
> Yet the same day, Harris’ husband headlined a Chicago fundraiser for her presidential campaign that was hosted by six partners of that firm — Kirkland and Ellis, according to an invitation obtained by The Associated Press.
> 
> Harris, a California senator and Democratic presidential candidate, was one of several White House hopefuls to blast the handling of Epstein’s case in Florida a decade ago, when his lawyers negotiated a deal with federal prosecutors that allowed him to avoid the possibility of years in prison. But her decision to move ahead with the fundraiser hosted by Kirkland and Ellis partners while criticizing the firm underscores the tension that can arise when a politician’s rhetoric collides with his or her need to raise money to sustain a presidential campaign.
> 
> “If any connection with Kirkland and Ellis is a stain on (senior Justice Department officials), why isn’t a connection with the law firm for the receipt of campaign contributions a stain on her own campaign?” said Paul S. Ryan, an attorney for the good-government group Common Cause.
> 
> Ian Sams, a Harris spokesman, said there wasn’t a problem with accepting the campaign contributions because the firm is big and the partners who hosted the fundraiser didn’t work on Epstein’s plea agreement.
> 
> “The people involved in that case have not supported her campaign, and she wouldn’t want that support anyway,” Sams said.
> 
> The firm and the six partners named on the event invitation did not respond to requests for comment.
> 
> The Epstein case has roiled Washington this month after federal prosecutors announced fresh charges against the financier, who is accused of paying underage girls for massages and then molesting them at his homes in Palm Beach, Florida, and New York during the 2000s. President Donald Trump’s labor secretary, Alex Acosta, resigned on Friday over his handling of the case. As a U.S. attorney in Miami, Acosta met with Kirkland and Ellis lawyers and agreed to a deal that allowed Epstein to avoid federal trial by pleading guilty to state charges and serving 13 months in jail.
> 
> The new attention being paid to the case has also drawn scrutiny on Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who both worked for Kirkland and Ellis. Harris, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it’s necessary that they recuse themselves from involvement in the matter to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.”
> 
> “In our democracy, no one — no matter how powerful or well-connected — is above the law. Yet Epstein’s deal, secured by his lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis, calls into question the integrity of our legal system and undermines the public’s confidence that justice will be served,” Harris said in a statement released hours after the Chicago fundraiser.
> 
> Barr is recused from any review of a 2008 plea deal, but has said that he doesn’t need to do so with the current case.
> 
> Before her election to the Senate, Harris was the attorney general of California and was elected to two terms as San Francisco’s district attorney. Her husband, Doug Emhoff, is also a high powered attorney who works in corporate law. So it is perhaps little surprise that law firms have been one of the top industries that have donated to her presidential bid, with Kirkland and Ellis being no exception.
> 
> Her campaign declined to say how much was raised at last week’s event, and the sum won’t have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission until October. Records show that a handful of employees and partners of the firm donated about $6,000 to Harris during the first quarter of the year — a drop when compared to the $12 million she raised during that time.
> 
> “It’s an international law firm with thousands of employees, many of whom probably support Kamala Harris because she’s a tough prosecutor who actually knows how to put away predators, unlike the Trump lackeys who protect them,” Sams said.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Bernie Sanders... a.k.a. Beta Bernie... a.k.a Crazy Bernie... a.k.a "most popular politician in the country" as described by birthday_massacre despite trailing considerably in every single democratic poll:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150873541128138754
BEGGING for a seat at the cool table! :lol :lol :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

^ How do you do, fellow young people of color?

Shaun King is actually a crazy person:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150762544233140225
Crazy thread.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150910929380491264
How is this real? :lmao


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, does she have to answer every reporter who sticks a camera in her face and ask loaded questions.
> 
> Admittedly, she chould have just condemned it, but all this shit about her hating the country. Yuck.
> 
> 
> 
> "Will you condemn the Antifa attack in Washington over the weekend?"
> 
> That's a loaded question?
Click to expand...

Did you see the plural on the end of question? 

He asked was she pleased they did it?

Should more people firebomb detention centres?

I don't know who this joker is but he's got his agenda and he asked his loaded question. I imagine she knows him for who he is and didn't want to respond.



CamillePunk said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, does she have to answer every reporter who sticks a camera in her face and ask loaded questions.
> 
> Admittedly, she chould have just condemned it, but all this shit about her hating the country. Yuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah let's pretend this is the only thing I've posted about her in here and my statement is based entirely on this one incident. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> Who needs to be honest when you can virtue signal?
Click to expand...

Let's pretend that I said it's based entirely on you and one statement so you can throw internet buzzwords around, yuck. 

Nothing you've said or anyone else has said (Trump being the prime example), would actually suggest she hates the country.

Not all about you bro.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> Did you see the plural on the end of question?
> 
> He asked was she pleased they did it?
> 
> Should more people firebomb detention centres?
> 
> I don't know who this joker is but he's got his agenda and he asked his loaded question. I imagine she knows him for who he is and didn't want to respond.


I don't doubt this guy was a bias right leaning reporter, but he did give her the benefit of the doubt at first by asking her a straightforward question. One she could have and should have been able to answer.

The 'plural' only came after she refused to acknowledge him. After that yea he was clearly trying to get a rise out of her.


----------



## Strike Force

Reaper said:


> At least people knew that Skynet was innately evil. In the movies, Skynet was something that they never showed was deeply entrenched in people's lives. It was just robotics. The line was clear.
> 
> This is worse. Most people support and defend Amazon and Microsoft - and the two companies are now so deeply entrenched in our daily lives, outside of complete boycott of how we live, there's not a damned thing we can do about it.


So true, and you simply can't work or socialize in modern society without owning at least some products from these massive tech companies. All my tech is either Apple or Sony - I don't use any Microsoft products and don't shop on Amazon, but Apple is just as bad a corporate titan, if not worse.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> I don't doubt this guy was a bias right leaning reporter, but he did give her the benefit of the doubt at first by asking her a straightforward question. One she could have and should have been able to answer.
> 
> The 'plural' only came after she refused to acknowledge him. After that yea he was clearly trying to get a rise out of her.


Yes, thats why I said she should have just said she condemns it straight away, seems odd to just not answer but my impression was she was in no mood to talk to that guy at all. I don't know why, maybe its a reporter she knows and avoids?


----------



## DOPA

If people are going to be judgemental towards Trump for not denouncing the violence from the Alt Right in Charlottesville then it's only fair that the same standards are also applied to Ilhan Omar in regards to Antifa.

I personally think the culture around disavowing people is a stupid gotcha tactic that is clearly politically motivated to make a certain person look morally corrupt but if you're gonna use those tactics against your political opponents then you gotta use the same standards for those you agree with too :shrug.


https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...HFDyQGsbjO2p2vOwZm48uf7UjcPiFODLOwmxocRQTL8IM



> The Pentagon is set to award a $10bn "war cloud" contract to a technology company next month, with both Amazon and Microsoft competing for the chance to build a military-grade AI computing system.
> 
> The Joint Enterprise Defence Infrastructure (Jedi) plan faces a number of obstacles before the US defence department makes its decision next month, not least from within the companies' own work forces.
> 
> Microsoft employees published an open letter on Medium last year, pleading the tech giant to not bid on the Jedi contract. "Many Microsoft employees don't believe that what we build should be used for waging war," they wrote.
> 
> A legal dispute has also been initiated by Oracle, who lost out in an earlier round of the bidding process. Oracle claims that there is a conflict of interest because Amazon has a former US Defense Department official working for it.
> 
> But if it does ever get off the ground, both figuratively and literally, the war cloud could fundamentally change modern warfare forever.
> 
> *What does a war cloud do?*
> 
> The Jedi project would involve establishing a vast cloud computing system, whereby a network of remote servers hosted on the internet store and process data.
> 
> As war cloud would use these servers to store classified military data, while also providing the computing power to enable AI-based war planning.
> 
> "Cloud is a fundamental component of the global infrastructure that will empower the warfighter with data and is critical to maintaining our military's technological advantage," the Pentagon outlined in a 2018 strategy document.
> 
> "It emphasises mission and tactical edge needs along with the requirement to prepare for artificial intelligence while accounting for protection and efficiencies."
> 
> *What technology will it use?*
> 
> The war cloud will be similar to other cloud computing systems, in that it will host data and computer processors in remote data centres, far away from where they are actually used.
> 
> The fundamental difference is that the customer is the US military, and therefore both the scale and the security-levels will be huge.
> 
> This means it will likely use similar technology to that already used by Amazon Web Services or Microsoft Azure, though it will be completely separated from the regular internet through a series of firewalls.
> 
> *How does it benefit soldiers?*
> 
> The US military is betting its war cloud will significantly improve ground operations by giving combat forces direct access to incredibly powerful artificial intelligence computers that can help with battlefield strategy.
> 
> Soldiers will also have access to streams of classified information, which would be heavily encrypted to prevent it getting into enemy hands.
> 
> According to the Defense Department's strategy document, the project will replace the military's "disjointed and stove-piped information systems".
> 
> The Star Wars-inspired acronym may evoke sci-fi-style weapons, though in reality the war cloud will bolster the already highly-advanced technological capabilities of the US military.


This is a more detailed article surrounding the AI government sub contract that is being fought over between Amazon and Microsoft for the War cloud as it's being called which is essentially an advanced computing system that will be used and stored in an online Cloud storage based system in order to more effectively plan strategies during military operations. If we are going further and more wacky, it almost sounds to me like it's the precursor to the AI super computer that Elon Musk and others have argued would be the first real implementation of Artificial Intelligence on a grand scale.

I would be lying if I said I wasn't worried about this. I already have concerns about AI in the future but this probably tops all those concerns. The last thing that is needed is more corporate/government collusion, more power for the military industrial complex and a more effective use for the United States to go to war. There's already a real technological race going on in terms of military might with more and more use of drones as an example as well as a race for the development of AI in general which in terms of warfare will be a real game changer. 

I don't know if I said this in this thread or just to friends of mine, but using the social credit system as an example in China, that in of itself worries me because companies like Google and Apple instead of standing up for the so called principles they say they have over people's privacy have gone along with China's standards and regulation policies because a) they don't want to lose a foothold in that market and b) They don't want their algorithm's copied by Chinese companies. My reasoning for being concerned even though we talking about a different country is that if these corporations are willing to go along with it in China, what stops them from bending their supposed morals if such a system was implemented in a western country? In the UK for example the police have already been testing out facial recognition technology and one person actually got arrested because they put their hood up because they didn't want their face being recorded on this new technology. Talk about Orwellian.

Well this right here is another example of why I'm concerned, it may be a different type of deal going on but it is still morally egregious and benefits absolutely no one other than the true government of the United States: The military industrial complex. The one constant throughout US politics since at least after Kennedy was assassinated. Nothing has changed because no president has been willing to stand up to them. And neither Trump nor any of the Democratic front runners in my opinion will either.

It wouldn't surprise me if DARPA's fingerprints are also all over this. Conspiratorial I know, but they are the official governmental agency for emerging technologies used by the military. I can't help but not think they are also involved.

I'm a lot more interested in these sorts of developments these days than just your run of the mill everyday politics in all honesty.


----------



## CamillePunk

CNN had Richard Spencer on their network just so he could bash Trump. :lmao Absolute clown world.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1151287500402503680


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CNN went so full retard with their anti-Trump agenda they invited an admitted white nationalist just so he could bash Trump and criticize him for not being enough of a white nationalist. Who over at CNN thought this was a good idea? How is that an L for Trump? :lol

If only Trump had the sense he would use this opportunity to troll both CNN _and_ Richard Spencer and disavow them both in the same tweet. The democrats would probably shit themselves.


----------



## CamillePunk

Richard Spencer is now CNN Contributor Richard Spencer. 

And he spent the whole time bashing Trump, which I can't imagine is what CNN expected. :lmao Of course, all they had to do was maybe check out his Twitter feed and they would have seen that Spencer is anti-Trump and in fact a member of the Yang Gang.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1151299323994550272
Pretty good ad. The youtube progressives won't like it because they dare not criticize their own, but the "Squad" is way out of control and making them all look like dangerous lunatics.


----------



## Twilight Sky

Well, Trump is testing his boundaries as a President, by attacking US born citizens, even if they are in congress. That's low even for him, and I know he said those things because he knew it would hurt them. I think he should be a bigger man than this, if anything else. I never thought I've have any reason to write to a sitting President, but unfortunately, a man like that wouldn't heed anything I would have to say.


----------



## Draykorinee

Twilight Sky said:


> Well, Trump is testing his boundaries as a President, by attacking US born citizens, even if they are in congress. That's low even for him, and I know he said those things because he knew it would hurt them. I think he should be a bigger man than this, if anything else. I never thought I've have any reason to write to a sitting President, but unfortunately, a man like that wouldn't heed anything I would have to say.


Even the usual Trump fans aren't rushing to his defence on here, think we all know even if he's not trying to be racist, what he said is racist and its really shown him up to anyone with a semblance of understanding of what the term 'they should just go home' means. 

He's not tested the boundaries, he's smashed right through them.

Its quite interesting to see that Congress have condemned it, the first time in over 100 years and it is entirely warranted and not just a political bit of gamesmanship.


----------



## El Grappleador

In the wake of recents discoveries as democrats and hair-splitting racism, Trump Vs The Squad, and a one party dictatorship disguised as a bipartisan rivalry, I've end up thinking this: American political system is a mess as equal as Mexican political system.

I'm aware I can't do anything to resolve it: just to wait & see. Meanwhile, the good distractions would be job, writing, spotify, podcast, practicing personal development, and less shocking news.


----------



## CamillePunk

El Grappleador said:


> In the wake of recents discoveries as democrats and hair-splitting racism, Trump Vs The Squad, and a one party dictatorship disguised as a bipartisan rivalry, I've end up thinking this: American political system is a mess as equal as Mexican political system.


Nice try. :heston 

I don't have a problem with Trump's comments.  America rescued Ilhan Omar's family from Somalia and she's completely ungrateful. She should go back and speak glowingly about Al-Qaeda over there.

As for "muh US Citizens". Trump is a US citizen and people accused him for YEARS of committing treason on behalf of the Russian government, an offense punishable by death. Spare me the tears.


----------



## deepelemblues

Rand Paul appointed as special envoy to Iran :bjpenn


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Rand Paul appointed as special envoy to Iran :bjpenn


Sounds like the perfect time to falsely accuse him of hating 9/11 victims. :lol Our media is disgusting.


----------



## SPCDRI

CamillePunk said:


> ^ How do you do, fellow young people of color?
> 
> Shaun King is actually a crazy person:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150762544233140225
> Crazy thread.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150910929380491264
> How is this real? :lmao


I just read a headline where it was like, "President Trump tied for second place as most racist president" and I was like, 12 U.S. presidents owned slaves, 8 of them while they were in the White House. The President's funposting ties _owning a slave plantation_ in terms of racism. He truly is in the Hall of Fame at everything he sets his mind to!

:ha

If there were anything to critique the president on, who would even want to listen after 4 years of the Boy who Cried Nazi and all this Chicken Little "Trump Derangement Syndrome" shit?


----------



## SPCDRI

deepelemblues said:


> Rand Paul appointed as special envoy to Iran :bjpenn


President Trump stands with Rand the way Luchasaurus stands with Jungle Boy. 1, because Rand is cool like Jungle Boy, and 2, it makes the president look fucking gigantic like Luchasaurus. 

TRUMPASAURUS AND BONGBOY

:mark:


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

While you are all bickering about racist tweets you probably missed the fact that trump ended asylum for Central Americans 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...tections-for-central-american-asylum-seekers/

And then also got the whole Democratic party to turn into chaos. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/16/pelosi-trump-racism-resolution-1417365

If you think Trump is a fool. You're the fool. The man is a strategist and I actually think it's kind of scary.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1151607134905389056
Quite the thread, this. :trump

The only thing the Democrats can do is impotently call him a racist, a word they've spent the last several years completely devaluing. :heston

I knew Trump was onto a winning strategy the moment Ben Shapiro weighed in to tell us what a fool Trump was for getting involved. Any time Shapiro is criticizing Trump, Trump is doing something right.


----------



## El Grappleador

CamillePunk said:


> Nice try. :heston


Yes it does. And no, He is just a resented man with Mexican authorities by not achieving to build his dream resorts.


----------



## CamillePunk

El Grappleador said:


> Yes it does. And no, He is just a resented man with Mexican authorities by not achieving to build his dream resorts.


OK be sure to let your countrymen and those passing through know that they might as well stay in Mexico!


----------



## deepelemblues

When Obama did this shit saying something he knew his base would eat up and his opponents would get super-gotten-to-pissed-off about, it was genius political strategery

When :trump does it it's horrible

:draper2


----------



## SPCDRI

Pencil Neck Freak said:


> While you are all bickering about racist tweets you probably missed the fact that trump ended asylum for Central Americans
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...tections-for-central-american-asylum-seekers/
> 
> And then also got the whole Democratic party to turn into chaos.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/16/pelosi-trump-racism-resolution-1417365
> 
> If you think Trump is a fool. You're the fool. The man is a strategist and I actually think it's kind of scary.


No, I didn't miss him making it harder to make bogus asylum claims while Nancy Pelosi was melting down in Congress and Emmanuel Cleaver stepped down from the chair. They turned a perfunctory vote on what amounts to if you like President Trump or not into a 3 hour long Keystone Kops routine.

The House democrats keen on impeachment just got their impeachment motion tabled and almost 140 democrats out of 235 voted to table impeachment. 

Is there, dare I say it...

Some trouble in paradise?!

:kofi

:trump

Also, President Trump's rally in North Carolina tonight was red hot and he had those 4 new "Young Radicals" democrats getting booed out of the building. Omar and Cortez have nuclear heat with mid-south America now. 

:cornette


----------



## yeahbaby!

SPCDRI said:


> Also, President Trump's rally in North Carolina tonight was red hot and he had those 4 new "Young Radicals" democrats getting booed out of the building. Omar and Cortez have nuclear heat with mid-south America now.
> 
> :cornette


Wow, what a shock. Blindly patriotic fools guzzling Trump's man juice everytime he utters America is great blah blah blah.

Any idiot wrapped in the American flag can get the blindly patriotic to follow them.


----------



## Eric Fleischer

Rand Paul blocks vote on aid to 9/11 First Responders.

Another absolute scumbag. So, so many of them in that party. I wish them all nothing but ill.



> Sen. Rand Paul blocked a vote to permanently reauthorize the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, which provides financial assistance for first responders suffering from 9/11-related medical issues. Paul prevented the Senate from voting to approve the bill through unanimous consent because of its cost.
> 
> "It has long been my feeling that we need to address our massive debt in the country," Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, said on the Senate floor. "And therefore any new spending ... should be offset by cutting spending that's less valuable. We need to at the very least have this debate."
> 
> Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who introduced the measure for unanimous consent Wednesday, said that she was "deeply disappointed" by Paul's actions. Under Senate rules, any one senator can propose that a bill be considered for unanimous consent, but one senator can also block it. The bill can still be brought to the floor for debate and a full vote.


----------



## SPCDRI

Every libertarian guy like this has a little bit of Asperger's. Just let the piddly shit money go, man.

BUT ITS THE PRINCIPAL OF THE MATTER

:vince$

This is why he never made it nationally and might lose in Kentucky. Dogshit instincts. This is Rand Being Rand, like Manny being Manny. This is just Rand Things. Its such good legislating!


----------



## deepelemblues

@CamillePunk

Didn't take long :heston


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1151673020097994752
:sodone


----------



## PresidentGasman

i think Biden or Elizabeth Warren have a real chance at defeating President Hitler, Bernie is way to far left and thats gonna scare off the boomers who tend to vote for moderates.


----------



## CamillePunk

Biden doesn't even have a chance of winning his primary. :lol

In before the "experts" come in to tell me what the polls show, only for them to return later after Biden crashes and burns to tell me that actually the polls were right all along. :nerd:


----------



## Miss Sally

SPCDRI said:


> I just read a headline where it was like, "President Trump tied for second place as most racist president" and I was like, 12 U.S. presidents owned slaves, 8 of them while they were in the White House. The President's funposting ties _owning a slave plantation_ in terms of racism. He truly is in the Hall of Fame at everything he sets his mind to!
> 
> :ha
> 
> If there were anything to critique the president on, who would even want to listen after 4 years of the Boy who Cried Nazi and all this Chicken Little "Trump Derangement Syndrome" shit?


Stuff like this is why nobody takes them seriously. Everything they say about Trump is absolute hyperbole that average people tune it out. They also talk about him so much that people just don't care. 

They're like obsessive stalkers that obsess over the most asinine things. Also pretty sure most people see it as a money grabbing scam, Trump's made so many people rich. 

Besides the Squad would have less "outrage" with Trump if he hated Jews. :laugh:


----------



## DaRealNugget

"Send her back! Send her back!" racists chant in reference to representative Ilhan Omar at a Trump rally in NC. Unsurprisingly, Trump's blatantly racist comments have emboldened his supporters, to where they feel they can keep saying the quiet part out loud. Before long, Trump's fascist rhetoric will lead to Ilhan Omar and others getting killed by his batshit insane supporters. And yet, even then you'll still see his biggest cocksuckers making excuses, claiming to see nothing wrong.

Hope all these degenerate cunts continue taking their masks off. Let all the racists come out in the open, so we can remember them when they try to hide back in that decrepit closet of theirs once their dear leader gets squashed in 2020.


----------



## SPCDRI

Oh, so now we're worried about politicians getting killed, when the Republican majority whip was almost killed by a deranged Bernie supporter with a rifle, a guy making a run on Donald Trump when he was a candidate got ball-washed by the media, somebody who sounded just like Cortez was walking around with firearms and throwing firebombs at an ICE building, all the Antifa shit, calling the president Mussolini and Hitler over 9000 times a day for 4 years in the national and international press? 

What would you call loud-mouthed socialists getting a scrap of what they've been dishing out for decades in America? Some people having some things done to them, maybe?

unk2

Dish it, can't take it. They'll always tell you what is happening to them, but they will never tell you why. Oh, they're just little saints! Where is all the animosity coming from! THIS IS PRESIDENT BLORMPF'S FAULT. 

You're starting to sound like serial killers pulling the insanity defense with the devil. THE ORANGE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT!

:trump


----------



## CamillePunk

Funny how nobody seems to be worried about getting Trump killed when they call him a traitor or imply he's Hitler 2.0.


----------



## Draykorinee

Funny how nobody seems to be worried about getting Obama\Hillary killed when...yada yada. Fuck sake guys, both sides are at it why are you all acting like you're in glass houses.

And plenty of people were worried about it, just not the MSM or the politicians themselves.

The democrats being shit has barely anything to do with Trump and some 4d chess, the Democrats are shit by themselves, Trump isn't some genius.


----------



## Headliner

So my guess is ya'll loved the send her back chant at the Klan rally right?


----------



## PresidentGasman

Headliner said:


> So my guess is ya'll loved the send her back chant at the Klan rally right?


this, i hate Illhan, one of the far-left loonies like AOC that got elected however calling her to be deported despite the fact she is legal and documented is disgusting, thats why I call that Cheeto turd President Hitler.


----------



## PresidentGasman

DaRealNugget said:


> "Send her back! Send her back!" racists chant in reference to representative Ilhan Omar at a Trump rally in NC. Unsurprisingly, Trump's blatantly racist comments have emboldened his supporters, to where they feel they can keep saying the quiet part out loud. Before long, Trump's fascist rhetoric will lead to Ilhan Omar and others getting killed by his batshit insane supporters. And yet, even then you'll still see his biggest cocksuckers making excuses, claiming to see nothing wrong.
> 
> Hope all these degenerate cunts continue taking their masks off. Let all the racists come out in the open, so we can remember them when they try to hide back in that decrepit closet of theirs once their dear leader gets squashed in 2020.


im hoping Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination, Bernie plays identity politics and is too Socialist, Biden is alright but he is far too lax on private corporations in an age of rampant Corporate power and abuse that is 2019, to me Elizabeth warren wont scare off the boomers nor give Corporations a free hand to continue fucking up America, I think she is the best chance to get Adon Trumpler out of office before he starts up the second holocaust.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

PresidentGasman said:


> this, i hate Illhan, one of the far-left loonies like AOC that got elected however calling her to be deported despite the fact she is legal and documented is disgusting, thats why I call that Cheeto turd President Hitler.


Saying something antagonistic on Twitter is not calling for someone to be deported. 

My god.


----------



## DaRealNugget

SPCDRI said:


> Oh, so now we're worried about politicians getting killed, when the Republican majority whip was almost killed by a deranged Bernie supporter with a rifle, a guy making a run on Donald Trump when he was a candidate got ball-washed by the media, somebody who sounded just like Cortez was walking around with firearms and throwing firebombs at an ICE building, all the Antifa shit, calling the president Mussolini and Hitler over 9000 times a day for 4 years in the national and international press?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2018_United_States_mail_bombing_attempts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ooter-conspiracy-theories-documents-explained

Fuck off.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

PresidentGasman said:


> im hoping Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination,* Bernie plays identity politics* and is too Socialist, Biden is alright but he is far too lax on private corporations in an age of rampant Corporate power and abuse that is 2019, to me Elizabeth warren wont scare off the boomers nor give Corporations a free hand to continue fucking up America, I think she is the best chance to get Adon Trumpler out of office before he starts up the second holocaust.


Wait, you aren't a fan of Bernie due to identity politics, but you are a fan of the woman who lied about her heritage for sympathy.

Strange, very strange.


----------



## virus21




----------



## SPCDRI

DaRealNugget said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2018_United_States_mail_bombing_attempts
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ooter-conspiracy-theories-documents-explained
> 
> Fuck off.


Third position deep ecology fascist in New Zealand, oh yeah, THANKS BLORMPF. 

Shooting by somebody who never voted for him or supported him and as a matter of fact, frequently denounced President: THANKS BLORMPF

You're blaming the President for the Vegas shooting? The shooting for which no motive or explanation has been given about the subject, definitely President Trump's fault. I bet he inspired a shooting by somebody whose motive may have been to kill Saudis that the president was sidling up to and possibly the president himself, while opening fire on a country music concert, certainly filled with people who voted for President Trump, all in order to pass bump stock ban legislation, something that...pissed off a lot of President Trump's allies? I've heard some 4D chess theories in my day, but that takes the cake and dances the watusi. 

Get a hold of yourself, man. Trump Derangement Syndrome par excellence here. 

"THE MAILMAN DIDN'T BRING MY PACKAGE TODAY. I BET TRUMP DID THIS!"


----------



## Draykorinee

PresidentGasman said:


> im hoping Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination, Bernie plays identity politics and is too Socialist, Biden is alright but he is far too lax on private corporations in an age of rampant Corporate power and abuse that is 2019, to me Elizabeth warren wont scare off the boomers nor give Corporations a free hand to continue fucking up America, I think she is the best chance to get Adon Trumpler out of office before he starts up the second holocaust.


You forgot to mention that Bernie wants Venezuela.

The brain washing of Americans against Socialism and Russians continues unabated.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Saying something antagonistic on Twitter is not calling for someone to be deported.
> 
> My god.


How about having a room full of people chant "send her back"? Is that enough of a sentiment calling for her deportation? Or are you going to make some excuse for that, too?


----------



## deepelemblues

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/18/democrats-threatened-deport-top-trump-aide-media-yawned/

:draper2

I am tired of this Democrats get to do it and everybody forgets because it gets memory holed but a Republican does it and it's literally worse than Hitler 

Except that Democrats get to take official actions and get away with it but a Republican can't even not really but kind of talk about doing it and it's literally worse than Hitler. If a Republican Senator officially requested information and/or action of this nature the end of the world would be nigh 

Now we've moved on to some bunch of people expressing their contempt and revulsion towards this Jew-hating bitch immigration fraudster Ilhan Omar and it's literally worse than Hitler 

Yeah it's okay to be hateful as fuck towards anyone to the right of JFK ever since Bush beat Gore because herp derp they deserve it and when those people return the feeling it's literally worse than Hitler because they are literally worse than Hitler and deserve it so how dare they 

This is the kinda shit that has me about to register to vote and push the screen for :trump next year


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reservoir Angel said:


> How about having a room full of people chant "send her back"? Is that enough of a sentiment calling for her deportation? Or are you going to make some excuse for that, too?


If you think teasing and chanting "send her back" is akin to calling for someone's legal deportation then that means saying something like "keep quiet" is akin to violating someone's first amendment rights.


----------



## MontyCora

Trump tweets something vaguely racist that you'd expect a dumb 70 year old fake conservative man who grew up in a literal gold palace in New York to tweet. His base chants basically what he tweeted. He turns his back on his base and condemns the chant of the thing he tweeted.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

I'm a few weeks late with this so forgive me if this has already been discussed, but wow this was so unbelievable I had to share it. 

This was just prior to the dem debate. Quite possibly the most disingenuous thing I've _ever_ witnessed from a politician!

:lol :lol :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1143212394811969536


----------



## birthday_massacre

MontyCora said:


> Trump tweets something vaguely racist that you'd expect a dumb 70 year old fake conservative man who grew up in a literal gold palace in New York to tweet. His base chants basically what he tweeted. He turns his back on his base and condemns the chant of the thing he tweeted.


And you see Trump basking in the chant, just soaking it up and loving it.


----------



## CamillePunk

Looked like he didn't know how or didn't want to react actually, usually he'll strut around and smile while people are chanting something he likes. He just stood there with a blank expression and then kept going without missing a beat once they stopped


----------



## deepelemblues

Meanwhile war with Iran is back on while this bullshit gets pointlessly argued over :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Looked like he didn't know how or didn't want to react actually, usually he'll strut around and smile while people are chanting something he likes. He just stood there with a blank expression and then kept going without missing a beat once they stopped


So trump says he was against the chats and tried to stop it but in reality he didn't and not only did he not try he waltzed on through as of nothing happened. Must have really been against it.



deepelemblues said:


> Meanwhile war with Iran is back on while this bullshit gets pointlessly argued over <img src="http://i.imgur.com/7KU7Fqx.png" border="0" alt="" title="Draper" class="inlineimg" />


I guess there's only so many times trump can be a blustering bully through diplomacy before someone calls his bluff.


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> I guess there's only so many times trump can be a blustering bully through diplomacy before someone calls his bluff.


You hate the president so much that you speak this way about the dangerous actions of a group of people who are Jew-hating wannabe Nazis, who have threatened your own country repeatedly, who have committed one attempted act of piracy and a successful such act in the last few days against your own country, _simply because their doing so is giving the president of the United States the finger in a way you can't_

:clap


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess there's only so many times trump can be a blustering bully through diplomacy before someone calls his bluff.
> 
> 
> 
> You hate the president so much that you speak this way about the dangerous actions of a group of people who are Jew-hating wannabe Nazis, who have threatened your own country repeatedly, who have committed two acts of piracy in the last few days against your own country, _simply because their doing so is giving the president of the United States the finger in a way you can't_
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/r4mH5hF.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Clap" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

You'll have to do better at the baiting I'm afraid, because at no point have I even hinted at the idea that I'm okay with Iran and their actions. 

However, If you poke a nest of wasps and a wasp stings you, don't expect me to not point out that poking wasps nests repeatedly might end up seeing you stung.

Sadly, not only has it stung you but it's stung the poor bastards telling you not to poke the nest.

Nice try though.


----------



## deepelemblues

Give Jeremy my regards at the next Hezbollah dinner reception in the Venezuelan embassy. Who else that hates the president might show up for you to display your satisfaction towards over their latest outburst or reckless brinkmanship aimed at him?


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Give Jeremy my regards at the next Hezbollah dinner reception in the Venezuelan embassy. Who else that hates the president might show up for you to display your satisfaction towards over their latest outburst or reckless brinkmanship aimed at him?


Again, haven't shown satisfaction at the fact that we're heading towards another unwinnable war, I view this as an entirely negative situation. When trump potentially sorted out north Korea I applauded him (half heartedly of course) , so why should I not now do the opposite? 

Your projection is duly noted though.

I'd rather iran folded and trump took the win, but you're too caught up in your own love affair that you think me so shallow as to be positively giddy at war with Iran. Sad.


----------



## deepelemblues

Now rumors are spreading that a _third_ tanker has been hijacked

That :trumppf sure is getting shown up and that is the most important thing


----------



## Draykorinee

Damn, we really are in your head aren't we deep.

Tragic.


----------



## MrMister

Berzerker's Beard said:


> I'm a few weeks late with this so forgive me if this has already been discussed, but wow this was so unbelievable I had to share it.
> 
> This was just prior to the dem debate. Quite possibly the most disingenuous thing I've _ever_ witnessed from a politician!
> 
> :lol :lol :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1143212394811969536


I don't know what's going on here but anytime anyone says "unprecedented national division" I have to be annoyed because this nation had a war against itself awhile back. Not sure if that's still taught in schools though.


----------



## MontyCora

CamillePunk said:


> Looked like he didn't know how or didn't want to react actually, usually he'll strut around and smile while people are chanting something he likes. He just stood there with a blank expression and then kept going without missing a beat once they stopped


Which in and of itself would be fine if he left it at that. But then the next day when confronted about letting the chant go off unchallenged he back tracks. He tries to imply that he did NOT approve of the chant and actually started talking very quickly in an effort to cut the chant off. Now, if he had just answered the question in some honest way the best he could it's a non issue, but now he says he started talking quickly with the intent to cut the crowd off and move on and that is just very simply not what happened. 

This is not even a political issue. This is not some major bit of law or a bill that needs to be passed or something actually important, it's just a small throwaway pretty racist moment at his rally, and he's SUCH a non stop liar that he can't help but try and lie about a rally that's on video tape. How in the FUCK is anything of any real substance supposed to get done when the President keeps trying to change what is reality is from whim to whim from second to second?

The answer is he won't get anything significant done for better or worse and that's probably just fine for all of us.


----------



## CamillePunk

MontyCora said:


> Which in and of itself would be fine if he left it at that. But then the next day when confronted about letting the chant go off unchallenged he back tracks. He tries to imply that he did NOT approve of the chant and actually started talking very quickly in an effort to cut the chant off. Now, if he had just answered the question in some honest way the best he could it's a non issue, but now he says he started talking quickly with the intent to cut the crowd off and move on and that is just very simply not what happened.
> 
> This is not even a political issue. This is not some major bit of law or a bill that needs to be passed or something actually important, it's just a small throwaway pretty racist moment at his rally, and he's SUCH a non stop liar that he can't help but try and lie about a rally that's on video tape. How in the FUCK is anything of any real substance supposed to get done when the President keeps trying to change what is reality is from whim to whim from second to second?
> 
> The answer is he won't get anything significant done for better or worse and that's probably just fine for all of us.


Yeah but lying in order to make yourself look good is something everyone does, especially in politics. Racism is a different thing altogether, and much worse.


----------



## MontyCora

I genuinely think that some folks are so sheltered and so used to the gas lighting that they don't think any of this is racist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MontyCora said:


> I genuinely think that some folks are so sheltered and so used to the gas lighting that they don't think any of this is racist.


Its because Trump has normalized it.


----------



## skypod

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]


MontyCora said:


> I genuinely think that some folks are so sheltered and so used to the gas lighting that they don't think any of this is racist.




People think being racist is an official card you need to apply for and carry around with you. Anyone that doesn't have this card, no matter what they say or do, simply can't be a racist. I mean its not written down on paper that they're racist, and if someone doesn't have any human skills to recognise bigotry in others, they're going to miss things. You actually need to, y'know leave your house and find out about peoples experiences other than your own to learn things in life. 


Having all white congressmen is fine, but questioning that is of course playing identity politics. As if there's no identity politics involved when exclusively white people are chosen for positions fpalm


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Is anyone else following this story involving Erica Thomas? :lol :






This might be a top 10 video in internet history.




edit: Wow someone just dug up this past tweet of hers. Stranger than fiction indeed.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/579075557041668096


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> *Yeah but lying in order to make yourself look good is something everyone does, especially in politics.* Racism is a different thing altogether, and much worse.


Come on though man, not so unbelievably blatantly as much as Trump does.


----------



## deepelemblues

This hearing has been an embarrassment

Mueller seriously looks and is acting like he either has dementia, or he just woke up after a nap to rival Rip van Winkle's

Only interesting thing so far is that the guy who was the lawyer for Hillary's IT guy has been revealed as the person who was in charge of the day to day work of the investigation which seems rather entirely improper, much less his being part of the investigation at all which also seems rather entirely improper

It also raises the question of exactly what Mueller's responsibilities and functions were, the way he looks today apparently his job was Special Counsel for brain deterioration and not Special Counsel for investigating anything


----------



## Tater

Russiagate is like the killer from a bad 80s slasher movie. No matter how many times you kill it, it just keeps coming back. There will be Hillbots on their death beds with dementia in 50 years still screaming about BUT MUH RUSSIA!!!

Well, I say they will have dementia in 50 years but you already have to have a bit of dementia to still believe in Russiagate after it has been so thoroughly debunked.


----------



## deepelemblues

Mueller admitted to Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) that the investigation was "not at any time curtailed, stopped, or hindered." 

So how is it that you couldn't make a determination on obstruction of justice if your investigation by your own words wasn't curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any time you fucking hack 

Mueller's press conference two months ago underlined once again as a shameful un-American hit job, with his bullshit line about if we could have conclusively cleared the president of obstruction we'd have said that. Piece of shit saying things no legitimate prosecutor with integrity would ever say because he hates the president and wanted to do all he could to hurt him politically


----------



## Kabraxal

What's next after this? This is, what, the third time the exact same shit has been repeated and both sides claim victory? This dog and pony show needs to end now. It has accomplished nothing but fanning the nuts on both sides to incendiary heights and pissing off every single independent voter that so much time and money has been wasted on a fucking circus.


----------



## Miss Sally

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Is anyone else following this story involving Erica Thomas? :lol :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a top 10 video in internet history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit: Wow someone just dug up this past tweet of hers. Stranger than fiction indeed.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/579075557041668096


She's insane and nobody wants to follow this because it looks so damn bad. This is going to get buried so fast.


----------



## Draykorinee

Not hindered but trump wouldn't talk to them. Interesting.


----------



## SPCDRI

any time I watched the testimony on a stream off YouTube, Robert Mueller was saying one of the following things:

"I defer to my report"

"Could you cite where that is in the report?"

"Can you repeat the question?"

"I'm not going to get into that"

"Could you repeat the question"

"I can't speak to that/I cannot speak to that as it pertains to an ongoing investigation"

And my favorite, the one that clearly became the surreal joke of the whole thing, 

Something about his PURVIEW. HIS PRECIOUS FUCKIN' PURVIEW!

PURVIEW GOT PUT OVER BIG TIME

:mark:

I muted it because it got boring to me, WWE has really trained me well on this one, but I decided to pay attention to it again and take it off mute and wouldn't you know it, within 90 seconds he was talking about purviews again!

:damn


----------



## SPCDRI

Draykorinee said:


> Not hindered but trump wouldn't talk to them. Interesting.


Why would he want to talk to these pigs, to get put in a perjury trap by the shitty FBI? Sure didn't do Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, George Papadopalous or Michael Flynn any goddamn favors. 

"I'll talk to the cops and it'll clear up everything!" is a top 10 retarded thought in human history.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Rep. Demings: "Isn't it fair to say [Trump's] written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers show that he wasn't always being truthful?"

Mueller: "Generally." abcn.ws/2XWIELc


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> Not hindered but trump wouldn't talk to them. Interesting.


In this country you don't have to talk to law enforcement period and tough shit if that doesn't help their investigation

I understand it's slightly different in the UK


----------



## DOPA

Tater said:


> Russiagate is like the killer from a bad 80s slasher movie. No matter how many times you kill it, it just keeps coming back. There will be Hillbots on their death beds with dementia in 50 years still screaming about BUT MUH RUSSIA!!!
> 
> Well, I say they will have dementia in 50 years but you already have to have a bit of dementia to still believe in Russiagate after it has been so thoroughly debunked.


Whole thing is a fucking circus.

This has been going on for over 2 years and still counting. They keep dragging this on and on hoping to find a smoking gun and never getting it. You'd think they'd give up by now but nope, still rolling on.

Also have those Democrats screaming impeachment learnt anything from history? Even if they impeach, there's no way the Republican lead senate are going to follow through with it and it'll likely give Trump a bump in the polls as he can claim that he's the victim of a witch hunt (and is he even wrong at this point?) and that the Democrats will do anything to get him removed to nullify the 2016 election. He can paint them as sore losers and it'll be believable.

The exact same shit happened with Clinton and Lewinsky. Nobody gave a fuck that Clinton lied under oath about the incident and even if the Republicans were correct, it came across as utterly petty and a political hitjob. In this case, the accusations are so wild and so many dots are being connected to prove a conspiracy that most people zoned out a year ago because it's utterly ridiculous and much like the Clinton case, comes across like a political hitjob.

Shit like this is why the Democrats have every chance of losing in 2020.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hindered but trump wouldn't talk to them. Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> In this country you don't have to talk to law enforcement period and tough shit if that doesn't help their investigation
> 
> I understand it's slightly different in the UK
Click to expand...

Where did your understanding come from?

You have every right to not talk to the police, except if asked your name and date of birth so its the same as the US, you have every right to remain silent.

Now your understanding will be correct.


----------



## Draykorinee

SPCDRI said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hindered but trump wouldn't talk to them. Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would he want to talk to these pigs, to get put in a perjury trap by the shitty FBI? Sure didn't do Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, George Papadopalous or Michael Flynn any goddamn favors.
> 
> "I'll talk to the cops and it'll clear up everything!" is a top 10 retarded thought in human history.
Click to expand...

Unrelated to my point in that if you're investigating someone and they refuse to talk to you, you're hindering the investigation of them. 

I am not arguing he had to talk to them.

I've always sided with caution with Russia gate because I don't think trump is clever enough to work with Russia secretly and keep it a secret. Russia gate is actively helping trump and the corporate democrats keep feeding in to it like numpties.


----------



## SPCDRI

He wasn't hindering shit. You might want to look into the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> Where did your understanding come from?
> 
> You have every right to not talk to the police, except if asked your name and date of birth so its the same as the US, you have every right to remain silent.
> 
> Now your understanding will be correct.


My understanding came from being completely correct 

Your understanding was a misunderstanding

I said it was slightly different

It is

In the UK, you can refuse to talk to law enforcement, but that refusal itself can be used against you in court

In the US, it can't. The prosecutor can't use your refusal to talk against you in court

So like I said, slightly different


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lofgren: "Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?"
Mueller: "Yes."

Lofgren: "And which candidate would that be?"
Mueller: "Well, it would be Trump."
Via CBS


----------



## birthday_massacre

SPCDRI said:


> He wasn't hindering shit. You might want to look into the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.


 10 examples of him hindering it.


----------



## Kabraxal

Watching both sides start screaming the same scripted lines they've been screaming since this began is both amusing and frustrating. Amusing because they come off as completely broken robots that got stuck when their programming fritzed. Frustrating because... well, this is an exact repeat of the same information we've already heard. Does either side actually think the independents are going to suddenly agree with you when the last two times before didn't? 

You know the definition of insanity? Doing the exact same thing and expecting a different result. Wonder what rabbit they'll pull out of their hat to give this tired circus another go. Still have a year and some change til the election...


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Kabraxal said:


> Watching both sides start screaming the same scripted lines they've been screaming since this began is both amusing and frustrating. Amusing because they come off as completely broken robots that got stuck when their programming fritzed. Frustrating because... well, this is an exact repeat of the same information we've already heard. Does either side actually think the independents are going to suddenly agree with you when the last two times before didn't?
> 
> *You know the definition of insanity? Doing the exact same thing and expecting a different result.* Wonder what rabbit they'll pull out of their hat to give this tired circus another go. Still have a year and some change til the election...


Sorry to go off on a tangent but this figure of speech is often cited incorrectly. That's not what Einstein was trying to say. That's not technically definition of insanity. The definition of insanity is just the opposite of sanity i.e. existing in a state of mental illness.

It is not supposed to read _"the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result"_.

It is supposed to read _"doing the same thing over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity"_.

(Y)


----------



## Draykorinee

SPCDRI said:


> He wasn't hindering shit. You might want to look into the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.


Okay, can you just engage your thought process just for a brief second. 

He has every right to hinder the process by not talking, but by not talking he is hindering the process. 

Do you now get it? If not let me cut it down for you.

An inquiry, be it murder, fraud or whatever, is hindered when the suspect of the inquiry says nothing because it means they need to investigate elsewhere instead of getting answers from the potential source.

Its not rocket surgery.

Stop using the whole 'he doesn't have to speak', we know, but that doesn't mean him not speaking is not slowing down the process.



deepelemblues said:


> In the UK, you can refuse to talk to law enforcement, but that refusal itself can be used against you in court


I'm not aware of this legal stance, as far as I'm aware we still have the right to remain silent and the police can't do shit. I can't find any legal precedence for this but if you can share it I'll concede because its not an area I have much interest in.


----------



## Kabraxal

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Sorry to go off on a tangent but this figure of speech is often cited incorrectly. That's not what Einstein was trying to say. That's not technically definition of insanity. The definition of insanity is just the opposite of sanity i.e. existing in a state of mental illness.
> 
> It is not supposed to read _"the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result"_.
> 
> It is supposed to read _"doing the same thing over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity"_.
> 
> (Y)


Considering our definitions match... huh?


----------



## MontyCora

DOPA said:


> Whole thing is a fucking circus.
> 
> This has been going on for over 2 years and still counting. They keep dragging this on and on hoping to find a smoking gun and never getting it. You'd think they'd give up by now but nope, still rolling on.
> 
> Also have those Democrats screaming impeachment learnt anything from history? Even if they impeach, there's no way the Republican lead senate are going to follow through with it and it'll likely give Trump a bump in the polls as he can claim that he's the victim of a witch hunt (and is he even wrong at this point?) and that the Democrats will do anything to get him removed to nullify the 2016 election. He can paint them as sore losers and it'll be believable.
> 
> The exact same shit happened with Clinton and Lewinsky. Nobody gave a fuck that Clinton lied under oath about the incident and even if the Republicans were correct, it came across as utterly petty and a political hitjob. In this case, the accusations are so wild and so many dots are being connected to prove a conspiracy that most people zoned out a year ago because it's utterly ridiculous and much like the Clinton case, comes across like a political hitjob.
> 
> Shit like this is why the Democrats have every chance of losing in 2020.


In any sane world the Mueller Report is definitely a smoking gun.


----------



## Miss Sally

With the Epstein arrest and more and more stuff coming out on human trafficking, it seems Pizzagate has a better chance of actually being fully factual compared to Russiagate.

This whole thing is a mess, arrest everyone since our Politicians collude and make deals with foreign powers every day.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

MontyCora said:


> In any sane world the Mueller Report is definitely a smoking gun.


In what way?


Anyone who still (somehow) believes in the Russiagate conspiracy theory - please watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOQXOV0PHL4


----------



## deepelemblues

Rashida Tlaib tweeted that someone should be deported in 2015

That someone being :trump

:draper2

In a sane world James Comey would be in jail for violating the False Statements Act for lying to the president's face that he wasn't a subject of investigation while Comey was in fact personally running an investigation of the president

In a sane world James Comey would be a national disgrace for emulating J. Edgar Hoover by implanting a spy, FBI official Anthony Ferrante, in the White House

In a sane world the Mueller investigation never would have happened as in hindsight there was no justification for it whatsoever and the justification offered was manufactured by political operatives and butthurt bureaucrats who couldn't accept the candidate they hated winning

In a sane world the abuse of the State's unlimited surveillance and investigatory capabilities for political purposes with manufactured justification would be a scandal instead of being handwaved as justified because Orange Man Bad


----------



## Draykorinee

Anyone who believes in Russia gate is just a conspiracy theorist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> In what way?
> 
> 
> Anyone who still (somehow) believes in the Russiagate conspiracy theory - please watch this video.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOQXOV0PHL4


LOL Jimmy Dore the useful idiot.

How can anyone coming away from the Mueller testimony not see Russia helped Trump win.

Mueller even admitted pretty much the Trump campaign was working with Russia.

Its also very telling how we know Russia interfered in the election and the GOP is blocking all these bills to tighten security on election ballot boxes

the GOP knows the only way they can win is by cheating and voter suppression.


----------



## MontyCora

Hoolahoop33 said:


> In what way?
> 
> 
> Anyone who still (somehow) believes in the Russiagate conspiracy theory - please watch this video.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOQXOV0PHL4


Mueller was straight up asked "if he wasn't the President would he be charged with a crime?" and Mueller said yes. 

Only people who literally do not understand what the report says think it's not a bad thing for Trump.

ANYONE who has EVER chanted "lock her up" and blows off the Mueller report is a full blown all out Partisan FOOL.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MontyCora said:


> Mueller was straight up asked "if he wasn't the President would he be charged with a crime?" and Mueller said yes.
> 
> Only people who literally do not understand what the report says think it's not a bad thing for Trump.
> 
> ANYONE who has EVER chanted "lock her up" and blows off the Mueller report is a full-blown all out Partisan FOOL.


Mueller also said to the question, who benefited from the Russians interfering in the election the most. 

and he said Trump

And lets not forget how when Don Jr was asked by the Russians if he wanted dirt on Hillary and eh said I'd love it.

If the report Mueller even said the only reason Don Jr was not indicted for a crime is because he was too stupid to know what he was doing was illegal.


----------



## MontyCora

Right. Because you have to prove intent, and it's REALLY hard to establish intent with someone who's clearly too stupid to know anything.

I have ZERO issue with being critical of Hillary's crimes or Bill Clintons VERY sketchy rapey past, just don't flex at me like your bullshit detector suddenly isn't working when you turn it on Trump and his goons.


----------



## Kabraxal

MontyCora said:


> Mueller was straight up asked "if he wasn't the President would he be charged with a crime?" and Mueller said yes.
> 
> Only people who literally do not understand what the report says think it's not a bad thing for Trump.
> 
> ANYONE who has EVER chanted "lock her up" and blows off the Mueller report is a full blown all out Partisan FOOL.


Could be charged... not would. Language is important.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

MontyCora said:


> Mueller was straight up asked "if he wasn't the President would he be charged with a crime?" and Mueller said yes.
> 
> Only people who literally do not understand what the report says think it's not a bad thing for Trump.
> 
> ANYONE who has EVER chanted "lock her up" and blows off the Mueller report is a full blown all out Partisan FOOL.



He later retracted that statement. 

Mueller - 


> Now, before we go to questions, I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, “You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.” That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/ted-lieu-mueller-testimony-gotcha-moment-reversed.html




birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Jimmy Dore the useful idiot.
> 
> How can anyone coming away from the Mueller testimony not see Russia helped Trump win.
> 
> Mueller even admitted pretty much the Trump campaign was working with Russia.
> 
> Its also very telling how we know Russia interfered in the election and the GOP is blocking all these bills to tighten security on election ballot boxes
> 
> the GOP knows the only way they can win is by cheating and voter suppression.


How is he a useful idiot? He challenges the BS narrative of the mainstream media, rather than just agreeing with everything they say as many people do. He also has many expert guests on who explain pretty clearly how the whole thing is just a sham. As I say, maybe check it out instead of dismissing it. 

Also I don't expect to get a straight answer but,

1. Has any connection to the Russian government ever actually been proven? Seemed like the report said that it was 'probably the Russian government.' That doesn't really cut it for me in this day and age.

2. Did Russian interference have any impact on the results of the election. It's difficult to see how a few trolls posting terrible memes could have an impact on the election. 

3. Why did Fusion GPS officials meet with the Russian lawyer in question before and after the Trump tower meeting. Is it possible to you that the whole thing might have been a sting operation by Fusion GPS as they attempted to make the Trump team look like it was in bed with the Russians. 

4. Did Russia have a greater impact on the election than other foreign actors, It seems to me that between Christopher Steel and Cambridge Analytica that the British had a more meaningful impact on the elections than the Russians! The whole thing comes across as Russophobia manifested.

I agree that the GOP and Trump should take the idea of foreign meddling more seriously than they have done, but lets not be under the impression that the Democrats wouldn't be happy to ignore it too if they felt it benefited them.


----------



## MontyCora

Kabraxal said:


> Could be charged... not would. Language is important.


It's important to the extent that we all know he won't go to prison. Just like the Clintons will never ever to go prison, just like how Jeffrey Epstein somehow avoided prison for DECADES despite rape accusations and owning an island known as "pedophile island." 

The contents of the report and Mueller's swift, completely unrestrained "yes" to that specific question, in a hearing where he was hemming and hawing and VERY very carefully picking his words, is all you really need to know about what Mueller thinks of Trump. If he was a prosecutor building a case against a private citizen he's beyond confident that he has what he needs to get a conviction.

That is of course keeping in mind that in order to get a conviction in a criminal case the general standard for the burden of proof is 95-99 percent sure beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to a civic case where you only need 51/49.

For example there's PLENTY of evidence that the Trump team engaged in conspiracy to commit treason against the united states with foreign aid, but in order to prove their knowing intent and malicious abuse of the law etc. you have to prove they KNEW the law and knew what they were doing was wrong etc. Which means prosecution has to prove intelligence and competent premeditation for Trumps family... A losing proposition.

It's like when OJ got acquitted because they were only 85 percent sure instead of 95-99.


----------



## MontyCora

Hoolahoop33 said:


> He later retracted that statement.
> 
> Mueller -
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/ted-lieu-mueller-testimony-gotcha-moment-reversed.html


It's important to understand the reasoning here. There's plenty of evidence that Trump committed Obstruction and it's right there in the report plain as day. Mueller is not retracting because Trump didn't do anything wrong. He's retracting because to say they reached the obvious and self evident determination would be to step over his legal limitations in accordance with the OLC's memo.

The memos parameters state that Mueller was incapable of finding a sitting President guilty of a crime. He can either be NOT GUILTY, or he can be NOT, NOT GUILTY in accordance with the OLC opinion.

Mueller very very very clearly makes his opinion that the President is NOT NOT GUILTY. The retraction is simply about legal protection.


----------



## CamillePunk

MontyCora said:


> It's important to understand the reasoning here. There's plenty of evidence that Trump committed Obstruction and it's right there in the report plain as day. Mueller is not retracting because Trump didn't do anything wrong. He's retracting because to say they reached the obvious and self evident determination would be to step over his legal limitations in accordance with the OLC's memo.


Wrong, he's retracting for the explicit reason he gave. You are suffering from TDS.


----------



## MontyCora

You can keep saying "wrong" and spamming Jimmy Dore videos until you're blue in the face, but you're not changing reality.

Meuller retracted because he's not a prosecutor and cannot make that determination. Period.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'll go with what he said over your hallucination that you know what he secretly meant.

Meanwhile


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154564240289570816
Oh good, so if Bernie wins we'll have another race-baiting Democrat President. That should speed along the inevitable fracturing of the country. The sooner I can stop paying federal income tax the better.


----------



## MontyCora

It's not "what he secretly meant" or the subtext of what he was saying. His testimony confirmed Trump is impeachable at the absolute minimum as per the report. Mueller confirmed that Trump directed his lawyer to lie. Mueller confirmed Trump can be indited after leaving office. Mueller confirmed that investigations are ongoing. Mueller confirmed that as damaging as the report is, its scope is so limited that it doesn't even explore multiple areas of wrong doing. Mueller confirmed that his actions met all three legal requirements to be considered obstruction on multiple counts. Mueller confirmed that Trump was untruthful in his written answers to investigators while under oath. (If you didn't go to law school like I did, then you should probably know lying under oath is the definition of obstructive) White House council was pressured to lie about whether or not he was asked to fire the former special council. That is impeachable in and of itself. 

The only possible way you could take that retraction from Mueller as any form of exoneration at all is if you simply did not watch the hearing, didn't understand what was said, or if you're so firmly entrenched in partisan denial that your head is literally in the sand. Presumably next to Sean Hannity and the President himself. 

MUELLER DID NOT CLEAR TRUMP OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Like I've said before, according to the OLC standard, Mueller could have found Trump NOT GUILTY(there can be lots of evidence and still be found not guilty) or he could find the President NOT NOT GUILTY.

He chose NOT NOT GUILTY.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154534756781969408


----------



## deepelemblues

NOT NOT GUILTY :heston

And this is someone who says they went to law school talking like this

If you want to justify impeachment based on NOT NOT GUILTY well sorry but it's over. A majority of the House of Representatives is not going to vote for articles of impeachment based on NOT NOT GUILTY 

A more sensible strategy would be to yell NOT NOT GUILTY at the voters, that might actually have an impact

Mueller knew he couldn't secure a conviction and punted to Barr so Barr would take the heat

NOT NOT GUILTY is a political argument

Not a legal one 

Anyone who WENT TO LAW SCHOOL should be familiar with the phrase "a government of laws, not of men"

Blurring the line between the law (the law) and politics (men) is a dangerous road and ORANGE MAN BAD isn't justification for dragging the country down it. Should have learned that lesson the other two times impeachment for political reasons was attempted BUT I GUESS NOT NOT NOT

At least this time there won't be any further damage from actually going through the process with its failure being a foregone conclusion like the last one and the consequent further hardening of hearts across the country



> Mueller even admitted pretty much the Trump campaign was working with Russia.


^This is pure trolling, BM is the most dedicated gimmick poster ever maybe


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hoolahoop33 said:


> He later retracted that statement.
> 
> Mueller -
> 
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/ted-lieu-mueller-testimony-gotcha-moment-reversed.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is he a useful idiot? He challenges the BS narrative of the mainstream media, rather than just agreeing with everything they say as many people do. He also has many expert guests on who explain pretty clearly how the whole thing is just a sham. As I say, maybe check it out instead of dismissing it.
> 
> Also I don't expect to get a straight answer but,
> 
> 1. Has any connection to the Russian government ever actually been proven? Seemed like the report said that it was 'probably the Russian government.' That doesn't really cut it for me in this day and age.
> 
> 2. Did Russian interference have any impact on the results of the election. It's difficult to see how a few trolls posting terrible memes could have an impact on the election.
> 
> 3. Why did Fusion GPS officials meet with the Russian lawyer in question before and after the Trump tower meeting. Is it possible to you that the whole thing might have been a sting operation by Fusion GPS as they attempted to make the Trump team look like it was in bed with the Russians.
> 
> 4. Did Russia have a greater impact on the election than other foreign actors, It seems to me that between Christopher Steel and Cambridge Analytica that the British had a more meaningful impact on the elections than the Russians! The whole thing comes across as Russophobia manifested.
> 
> I agree that the GOP and Trump should take the idea of foreign meddling more seriously than they have done, but lets not be under the impression that the Democrats wouldn't be happy to ignore it too if they felt it benefited them.


Yes it has been proven Don Jr amitted it FFS. And AGAIN Mueller said the only person Don Jr was not charged was because he was too stupid to know what he was doing was a crime.

yes it had impact, Mueller even said the Russian interference helped Trump

LOL a sting operation, this is why I cant take you seriously.

Irrelevant

And FFS Trump basically told Putin to interfere in the next election out in the open. when Trump laughed and say now Putin you won't interfere in this next election right WINKS

Open your eyes FFS

Lets not forget Mueller even said he was not allowed to look into money laundering wiht Russia

There is a reason why Trump obstructed justice in at least 10 instances


----------



## FriedTofu

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ublican-ilhan-omar-charged-felony-qanon-trump



> A pro-Trump Republican candidate for Congress who is aiming to unseat Ilhan Omar in Minnesota has been charged with a felony after allegedly stealing from stores.
> 
> Danielle Stella was arrested twice this year in Minneapolis suburbs over allegations that she shoplifted items worth more than $2,300 from a Target and goods valued at $40 from a grocery store. She said she denied the allegations.
> 
> *Stella, a 31-year-old special education teacher, was reported this week to be a supporter of the baseless “QAnon” conspiracy theory about Donald Trump battling a global cabal of elite liberal paedophiles.*
> 
> This week Stella also described Minneapolis as “the crime capital of our country”. She has in the past complained that local police were “overworked and overburdened” and said that, if elected, she would work to reduce crime.
> 
> In a series of text messages, Stella said: “I am not guilty of these crimes. In this country I am innocent until proven guilty and that is the law.”
> 
> She added: “If I was guilty of crimes, I would never run for public office, putting myself in the public eye under a microscope to be attacked by all political sides.”
> 
> An attorney for Stella, Joshua London, declined to comment.
> 
> Stella is accused of stealing 279 items valued at $2,327.97 from a Target store in Edina, to the south-west of Minneapolis, on 8 January this year. She was arrested for the alleged theft after security staff called the police.
> 
> A criminal complaint filed to Hennepin county district court alleged Stella was seen leaving the store without paying for most of her haul, after “scanning only a few other items” that were valued at about $50.
> 
> *The complaint said Stella told police in a statement she “remembers arriving at Target to purchase items but nothing else” due to post-traumatic stress disorder, and that she “normally she goes to Target with someone because of anxiety around people”.*
> 
> Stella has said publicly that she was the victim of a severe violent assault in 2008. She is charged with the thefts under her former surname, which the Guardian agreed not to report because she said it could endanger her safety.
> 
> She is charged with felony theft over the incident at Target and faces a punishment of up to five years in prison and a fine of $10,000 if convicted, according to court filings.
> 
> Police and court records said a warrant was put out for Stella’s re-arrest for alleged contempt of court on 4 April, after she failed to show up for a court hearing.
> 
> Officers in nearby Bloomington then arrested Stella on 28 April after she was allegedly seen by security staff at a Cub Foods grocery store stealing a bottle of tick spray for cats, and placing other items “under her purse so that they could not be seen”.
> 
> When they checked her identification, police officers discovered the open warrant for Stella’s arrest over her failure to appear in court for the earlier alleged shoplifting, their incident report said.
> 
> The report said Stella was arrested for alleged misdemeanour theft for taking “cat merchandise” and cat food valued at $40.46. She was issued with a citation and given a date to appear in court. It was not clear whether authorities would pursue the contempt of court allegation.
> 
> *Stella’s candidacy has attracted interest from the far-right conspiracy website InfoWars*, which broadcast an interview with her this week. Stella laughed and nodded as the host, J Owen Shroyer, called Omar “a witch” and said: “Everything about her is a fraud.”
> 
> Describing Minneapolis during the interview as America’s “crime capital”, Stella falsely claimed that crime in the city had risen by 80% over the past year. According to Minneapolis police data, there has been a 10.7% uptick in serious crime year-on-year, following a 16.5% decline in 2018.
> 
> The rightwing commentator Todd Starnes promoted Stella in an interview earlier this month on Fox News’s streaming service Fox Nation. “We certainly wish Miss Stella the very best,” Starnes said, adding that he hoped for a “significant change in representation” in Omar’s district.
> 
> Last month Stella officially registered with the Federal Election Commission as a candidate for the Republican nomination in Minnesota’s fifth congressional district. She later spoke at the “Demand Free Speech” rally in Washington.
> 
> She has accused Omar of being a criminal for advising immigrants how to avoid agents from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She said in a tweet that any representatives who fail to “uphold the rule of law” should be ejected from office.
> 
> Court records say that in 2009, Stella pleaded guilty to driving while impaired from alcohol and fleeing a police officer. The latter charge was prosecuted as a felony but later classified as a gross misdemeanour as part of Stella’s plea.


Bolded the funny parts to me. :lmao

She is most likely a red shirt sacrificed for a seat her party probably won't win, but come on at least find someone that isn't a conspiracy nutjob that can't go to target to shop on her own. :lmao

Because of this I checked her twitter and her response is golden. :ha I guess no publicity is bad publicity since I only know of her because of this dumb article. Probably running for office to gain a following for her future job in conspiracy nutjob media.


----------



## MontyCora

deepelemblues said:


> NOT NOT GUILTY :heston
> 
> And this is someone who says they went to law school talking like this
> 
> If you want to justify impeachment based on NOT NOT GUILTY well sorry but it's over. A majority of the House of Representatives is not going to vote for articles of impeachment based on NOT NOT GUILTY
> 
> A more sensible strategy would be to yell NOT NOT GUILTY at the voters, that might actually have an impact
> 
> Mueller knew he couldn't secure a conviction and punted to Barr so Barr would take the heat
> 
> NOT NOT GUILTY is a political argument
> 
> Not a legal one
> 
> Anyone who WENT TO LAW SCHOOL should be familiar with the phrase "a government of laws, not of men"
> 
> Blurring the line between the law (the law) and politics (men) is a dangerous road and ORANGE MAN BAD isn't justification for dragging the country down it. Should have learned that lesson the other two times impeachment for political reasons was attempted BUT I GUESS NOT NOT NOT
> 
> At least this time there won't be any further damage from actually going through the process with its failure being a foregone conclusion like the last one and the consequent further hardening of hearts across the country
> 
> 
> 
> ^This is pure trolling, BM is the most dedicated gimmick poster ever maybe


You seemingly don't even understand what I've said, so I'll try it one more time!

Can a sitting President be criminally indicted? This question is relevant every now and then from Nixon to Clinton to now Trump. There's a difference between indictment and impeachment. Indictment is a criminal accusation against an individual. Basically how you would start a criminal prosecution. If you murdered someone, the state would then indict you for murder. Impeachment is just a mechanism for moving an official from the federal government. It's a formal declaration of wrong doing and potentially removes the person from government positions, but unlike an indictment it does not necessarily mean jail time. 

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from criminal prosecution for discretionary actions taken as part of their duty. Qualified immunity is a common defense for police or police departments for example. The text of the constitution does mention impeachment of the President but not indictment. The absence of that statement however does not necessarily mean it's not available. There's ambiguity in the constitution.

Which brings us to the Office of Legal Council, aka the OLC. The OLC is an office of the Justice Department that acts as a legal advisor to the President and the executive branch agencies. Generally it's a non partisan office to help the President out with questions of legality. 

The OLC has written three memos on if the President can be indicted or not, the first for Nixon in 1973 shortly before the Saturday night Massacre. With no clear constitutional answers to the question of charging the President they decided an "indictment in office would besmirch the symbolic head of the nation. This would suggest that criminal proceedings against a President in Office should not go beyond the point." The second memo days later argued the same applied to the Vice President.

Those memos of course were never tested because Nixon resigned before impeachment proceedings OR indictment could take place, and he was pardoned by Ford. Later in the year 2000 a third memo decided that the only entity that should hold the power to proceed with removing a sitting President was the elected officials of Congress. 

"It would be inconsistent with that carefully considered judgement to permit an unelected grand jury and prosecutor to effectively remove a sitting President by bringing criminal charges while in office."

There was another secret memo in 98 that was recently unearthed that argued nobody in the United States is above the law, but ultimately that's three memos or Presidential immunity to indictment, one against. It should be noted that all three notices have inherent bias as they were written by men who worked for... Well, the President.

This brings us to Mueller and his probe. The most singularly important key thing you need to understand is the legal framework Mueller used to frame his report. He essentially created a one way street that could NOT have found the President guilty of a crime, but it COULD have found him innocent. Unless you thoroughly understand this precedent, you won't understand the report at all. 

He literally starts the report by citing the OLC and DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President. You need to understand nobody has actually been in Mueller's shoes before and had to actually go down this road. Like I said Nixon fucked off. Because Mueller cannot indict the President, and because the President cannot turn around and clear his name, he ultimately determines that if the President broke the law or not, ultimately it would be wrong to come to a formal conclusion that he broke the law.

Mueller noted in the report and the hearing that these considerations disappear when the President is no longer in office. Mueller ultimately left the power to Congress to start impeachment preceding as per the various memos, for the President to resign, or for the President to leave office for the normal mechanisms of the judicial process to kick in. 

On the other hand, because nobody would ever challenge being found innocent, Mueller did find it appropriate to rule the President innocent if he found in his investigation that the evidence did NOT amount to an indictable offense. 

SO! Based on the rules and standards Mueller setup, there is no way for him to find that the President committed any crime. It is not possible. He could have shot someone in public on 5th avenue and Mueller would not have the power to indict him. This is a standard that to my knowledge does not exist literally anywhere else in criminal law. 

Once again, Mueller created a one way street. He could have found the President innocent. But it could not ever, for any reason have found him guilty. Of anything.

In as oversimplified terms as I can possibly state, they were allowed to rule NOT GUILTY.

or

NOT NOT GUILTY.

They ruled NOT NOT GUILTY.

As Mueller quotes in the report "Based on facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement."

The judgement he is referring to is innocence. 

So what's the point of the entire investigation in the first place? If Mueller decided to tie his hands from the first instance? Well, the point was to gather facts, make a recommendation, and then put the ball in Congresses court. It's a extremely safe move from the Special Council. The power to begin Impeachment proceedings can happen from the House but ultimately at the end of the day it's up to Congress... And I mean... Come on. Congress ain't doing shit.

Once again, according to Muellers own understanding of legal procedure he could not find the President guilty of obstruction and conspiracy/collusion whatever you want to call it. His role was to gather the evidence while it was fresh, preserve it, and give it to the powers that be. 

So to close lets examine the actual evidence. Was the Barr summary a case of there being NO evidence, or was it a case where there was actually a LOT of evidence, enough to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal law which I have established is usually thought of as 95-99 percent.

The report is WORSE than that.

For collusion and conspiracy the report found quite a lot of evidence, including a string of incredibly damning situations. Looking at conspiracy holistically though, it was not enough to charge(95-99).

With respect to obstruction of Justice? As I've laid out in previous posts it's a WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL GAME. The report has many places which suggest obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt.

From the report. "Our investigations found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels." In other places Mueller found "substantial" evidence of obstruction. 

"The Presidents efforts to influence the investigations were mostly unsuccessful, but that was largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." As should be obvious attempted obstruction is very much a crime. Just like firing a gun at me is attempted murder even if the bullet is a dud and doesn't fire.

Mueller laid out ten instances of obstruction in the report as well as the relevant evidence. The strength of the evidence of the various claims varies, but there's at least four that I counted which contained all three legal requirements for obstruction and substantial evidence for each element, the obstructive act the nexus and the intent.

It's ridiculous to read these sections and then turn around and say Mueller didn't find Trump guilty of obstruction, but only refrained from saying so because of the legal frame work of the report. If you do, then you simply do not understand what you're seeing.


----------



## BRITLAND

*Pelosi warns British of no US trade deal if Good Friday peace weakened*



> Nancy Pelosi has warned Boris Johnson that the United States will scupper any trade deal with Britain if Irish border is affected.
> 
> Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, has warned Britain’s new Prime Minister Boris Johnson that Congress will not accept a new trade deal if the Belfast Agreement was jeopardized by Brexit.
> 
> Speaking to the Irish Times Pelosi stated “We made it clear in our conversations with senior members of the Conservative Party earlier this year that there should be no return to a hard border on the island. That position has not changed. Any trade deal between the US and Great Britain would have to be cognizant of that.”
> 
> She stated the issue of Northern Ireland was foremost in the minds of the US Congress as a no-deal Brexit looked more likely.
> 
> Pelosi and Friends of Ireland head, Richie Neal, can block any trade deal between Britain and the US.
> 
> Neal is Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which scrutinizes every trade deal and can withhold approval.
> 
> Her words provide welcome assurance for an Irish government taken aback by the aggressive posture of Boris Johnson since coming to power. Johnson said he will end the backstop previously agreed by former Prime Minister Theresa May.
> 
> The Times reports that “Pelosi said during a visit to London in April that there would be ‘no chance whatsoever’ of a US-UK trade deal if the Northern Ireland peace agreement was weakened by Brexit.”
> 
> Ireland’s Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar was equally as negative on Thursday about Johnson’s plans.
> 
> He said Ireland required a “legally operable and legally binding assurance ... that no matter what else may happen as a consequence of Brexit, we won’t see the emergence of a hard border between North and South, we won’t see the North and the South drift apart in any way.”


https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/pelosi-warns-brexit-british-trade-deal

Can't wait to see the threesome of Trump, Boris and Farage to respond :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155516739230326784
Really don't agree with her non-foreign policy positions but I do like all of these positions


----------



## deepelemblues

BRITLAND said:


> *Pelosi warns British of no US trade deal if Good Friday peace weakened*
> 
> 
> https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/pelosi-warns-brexit-british-trade-deal
> 
> Can't wait to see the threesome of Trump, Boris and Farage to respond :lol


Utter nonsense

Neither the Ways and Means Committee, nor the House as a whole, can prevent a trade agreement if the president is determined to have one

If necessary, the president can simply ignore both the House and the Senate, as Barack Obama did in the case of the JCPOA which never gained the approval of either chamber



MontyCora said:


> You seemingly don't even understand what I've said, so I'll try it one more time!
> 
> Can a sitting President be criminally indicted? This question is relevant every now and then from Nixon to Clinton to now Trump. There's a difference between indictment and impeachment. Indictment is a criminal accusation against an individual. Basically how you would start a criminal prosecution. If you murdered someone, the state would then indict you for murder. Impeachment is just a mechanism for moving an official from the federal government. It's a formal declaration of wrong doing and potentially removes the person from government positions, but unlike an indictment it does not necessarily mean jail time.
> 
> The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from criminal prosecution for discretionary actions taken as part of their duty. Qualified immunity is a common defense for police or police departments for example. The text of the constitution does mention impeachment of the President but not indictment. The absence of that statement however does not necessarily mean it's not available. There's ambiguity in the constitution.
> 
> Which brings us to the Office of Legal Council, aka the OLC. The OLC is an office of the Justice Department that acts as a legal advisor to the President and the executive branch agencies. Generally it's a non partisan office to help the President out with questions of legality.
> 
> The OLC has written three memos on if the President can be indicted or not, the first for Nixon in 1973 shortly before the Saturday night Massacre. With no clear constitutional answers to the question of charging the President they decided an "indictment in office would besmirch the symbolic head of the nation. This would suggest that criminal proceedings against a President in Office should not go beyond the point." The second memo days later argued the same applied to the Vice President.
> 
> Those memos of course were never tested because Nixon resigned before impeachment proceedings OR indictment could take place, and he was pardoned by Ford. Later in the year 2000 a third memo decided that the only entity that should hold the power to proceed with removing a sitting President was the elected officials of Congress.
> 
> "It would be inconsistent with that carefully considered judgement to permit an unelected grand jury and prosecutor to effectively remove a sitting President by bringing criminal charges while in office."
> 
> There was another secret memo in 98 that was recently unearthed that argued nobody in the United States is above the law, but ultimately that's three memos or Presidential immunity to indictment, one against. It should be noted that all three notices have inherent bias as they were written by men who worked for... Well, the President.
> 
> This brings us to Mueller and his probe. The most singularly important key thing you need to understand is the legal framework Mueller used to frame his report. He essentially created a one way street that could NOT have found the President guilty of a crime, but it COULD have found him innocent. Unless you thoroughly understand this precedent, you won't understand the report at all.
> 
> He literally starts the report by citing the OLC and DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President. You need to understand nobody has actually been in Mueller's shoes before and had to actually go down this road. Like I said Nixon fucked off. Because Mueller cannot indict the President, and because the President cannot turn around and clear his name, he ultimately determines that if the President broke the law or not, ultimately it would be wrong to come to a formal conclusion that he broke the law.
> 
> Mueller noted in the report and the hearing that these considerations disappear when the President is no longer in office. Mueller ultimately left the power to Congress to start impeachment preceding as per the various memos, for the President to resign, or for the President to leave office for the normal mechanisms of the judicial process to kick in.
> 
> On the other hand, because nobody would ever challenge being found innocent, Mueller did find it appropriate to rule the President innocent if he found in his investigation that the evidence did NOT amount to an indictable offense.
> 
> SO! Based on the rules and standards Mueller setup, there is no way for him to find that the President committed any crime. It is not possible. He could have shot someone in public on 5th avenue and Mueller would not have the power to indict him. This is a standard that to my knowledge does not exist literally anywhere else in criminal law.
> 
> Once again, Mueller created a one way street. He could have found the President innocent. But it could not ever, for any reason have found him guilty. Of anything.
> 
> In as oversimplified terms as I can possibly state, they were allowed to rule NOT GUILTY.
> 
> or
> 
> NOT NOT GUILTY.
> 
> They ruled NOT NOT GUILTY.
> 
> As Mueller quotes in the report "Based on facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement."
> 
> The judgement he is referring to is innocence.
> 
> So what's the point of the entire investigation in the first place? If Mueller decided to tie his hands from the first instance? Well, the point was to gather facts, make a recommendation, and then put the ball in Congresses court. It's a extremely safe move from the Special Council. The power to begin Impeachment proceedings can happen from the House but ultimately at the end of the day it's up to Congress... And I mean... Come on. Congress ain't doing shit.
> 
> Once again, according to Muellers own understanding of legal procedure he could not find the President guilty of obstruction and conspiracy/collusion whatever you want to call it. His role was to gather the evidence while it was fresh, preserve it, and give it to the powers that be.
> 
> So to close lets examine the actual evidence. Was the Barr summary a case of there being NO evidence, or was it a case where there was actually a LOT of evidence, enough to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal law which I have established is usually thought of as 95-99 percent.
> 
> The report is WORSE than that.
> 
> For collusion and conspiracy the report found quite a lot of evidence, including a string of incredibly damning situations. Looking at conspiracy holistically though, it was not enough to charge(95-99).
> 
> With respect to obstruction of Justice? As I've laid out in previous posts it's a WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL GAME. The report has many places which suggest obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> From the report. "Our investigations found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels." In other places Mueller found "substantial" evidence of obstruction.
> 
> "The Presidents efforts to influence the investigations were mostly unsuccessful, but that was largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." As should be obvious attempted obstruction is very much a crime. Just like firing a gun at me is attempted murder even if the bullet is a dud and doesn't fire.
> 
> Mueller laid out ten instances of obstruction in the report as well as the relevant evidence. The strength of the evidence of the various claims varies, but there's at least four that I counted which contained all three legal requirements for obstruction and substantial evidence for each element, the obstructive act the nexus and the intent.
> 
> It's ridiculous to read these sections and then turn around and say Mueller didn't find Trump guilty of obstruction, but only refrained from saying so because of the legal frame work of the report. If you do, then you simply do not understand what you're seeing.


Mueller has specifically and directly contradicted your position on the OLC memo(s). Multiple times

Your desperate fantasies are not going to be granted reality no matter how earnestly you believe in their actualization. Cling to them as you wish. It doesn't matter. They've all been heard before, and found wanting. Cling to Mueller being forced down this road despite him repeatedly saying he was not. Cling to this legal fiction of NOT NOT GUILTY you've created like never giving up will somehow give it reality. Cling to the rest of your desperate fantasies that you've spun out at length as hard as you can, they'll sustain you for the next 5 years. Although they won't do anything more

I will make one final note regarding understanding. You apparently do not understand that an investigator does not "find" anyone "guilty" of anything. Police do not make a finding of guilt. A prosecuting attorney does not make a finding of guilt. A jury or a judge does. Did you miss that part of law school? Or are you simply being slippery and imprecise with your language - this is hardly the only instance - because that's what law school taught you?


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Our future president. wens3


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155516739230326784


----------



## MontyCora

deepelemblues said:


> Utter nonsense
> 
> Neither the Ways and Means Committee, nor the House as a whole, can prevent a trade agreement if the president is determined to have one
> 
> If necessary, the president can simply ignore both the House and the Senate, as Barack Obama did in the case of the JCPOA which never gained the approval of either chamber
> 
> 
> 
> Mueller has specifically and directly contradicted your position on the OLC memo(s). Multiple times
> 
> Your desperate fantasies are not going to be granted reality no matter how earnestly you believe in their actualization. Cling to them as you wish. It doesn't matter. They've all been heard before, and found wanting. Cling to Mueller being forced down this road despite him repeatedly saying he was not. Cling to this legal fiction of NOT NOT GUILTY you've created like never giving up will somehow give it reality. Cling to the rest of your desperate fantasies that you've spun out at length as hard as you can, they'll sustain you for the next 5 years. Although they won't do anything more
> 
> I will make one final note regarding understanding. You apparently do not understand that an investigator does not "find" anyone "guilty" of anything. Police do not make a finding of guilt. A prosecuting attorney does not make a finding of guilt. A jury or a judge does. Did you miss that part of law school? Or are you simply being slippery and imprecise with your language - this is hardly the only instance - because that's what law school taught you?


I didn't say that he was forced into the OLC decision, he simply did what he thought was established and appropriate given the legal and historical context that I've laid out. Like I specifically said it was a very safe stance for him to take.

An investigators or prosecutors job in most instances is to establish an argument of guilty. I would have thought that implication was obvious and I wouldn't need to LITERALLY hold your hand and walk you through... Everything to do with Law. Look dude... I just laid out the facts of the report as plain as day as I possibly could. Every single thing I said is factually accurate. It's the quality and the context of the report. I wasn't rude to you, I didn't look down on you. I've been WAY nicer to you than you deserve given how you're talking to me. If you want to nitpick little things I say in an attempt to discredit the information I've clearly and patiently laid out, that's just fine. Want to dismissively shit on my education? Great. As if that discredits any of what I said in any way.

But now you're just being willfully obtuse and frankly, you're just a real cunt of a person. You're not interested in any kind of textual conversation about the facts, you just want to hand wave away. In fact you've been SO light on the counter points of ANY real substance or intelligence that I suspect you don't really have any to offer... Sooooo, bye.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155608864668209158
this is an actual person running for president as a democrat in the year of our lord two thousand and nineteen how is this possible


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155608864668209158
> this is an actual person running for president as a democrat in the year of our lord two thousand and nineteen how is this possible


I guess someone is a fan of Starship Troopers


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155608864668209158
> this is an actual person running for president as a democrat in the year of our lord two thousand and nineteen how is this possible


Do I get to shoot John Delaney? Cause I would seriously consider signing up for this if I got to shoot John Delaney.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155608864668209158
> this is an actual person running for president as a democrat in the year of our lord two thousand and nineteen how is this possible


Why not?

Our bestest and the greatest nation on earth Israel has mandatory service doesn't it? Aren't there some Euro countries that do too? We should follow their examples! :x


----------



## TripleG

It sounds crazy to us because there hasn't been a draft in decades, and mandatory service conflicts with the idea of Americans having the choice to make their own path in the world. 

That said, mandatory military service wouldn't be the worst thing, at least for betterment of individuals. 

I hate to say it, but a little discipline goes along way. If every US citizen at say age 21 had to serve one year in the military, they could learn a skill or two and learn how to deal with tough situations.

We'd probably have less basement dwellers and more capable adults in the real world.

It'll never happen because even suggesting it will cause a massive meltdown, and I'd have my own issues with it, but some people could use the metaphorical kick in the butt that military service provides.


----------



## Draykorinee

Mandatory military service will be the worst thing for a country that already idolises the military, a military desperate to get in to conflicts around the world with little care for its service personnel, whose only interest is in increasing its ability to spend more money and make people rich by destroying other countries and taking their resources.

Its a no from me.


----------



## Tater

If a military man gives me a gun and tells me to shoot the enemy, I will shoot the military man who gave me that gun.

Know your enemy.


----------



## CamillePunk

TripleG said:


> It sounds crazy to us because there hasn't been a draft in decades, and mandatory service conflicts with the idea of Americans having the choice to make their own path in the world.
> 
> That said, mandatory military service wouldn't be the worst thing, at least for betterment of individuals.
> 
> I hate to say it, but a little discipline goes along way. If every US citizen at say age 21 had to serve one year in the military, they could learn a skill or two and learn how to deal with tough situations.
> 
> We'd probably have less basement dwellers and more capable adults in the real world.
> 
> It'll never happen because even suggesting it will cause a massive meltdown, and I'd have my own issues with it, but some people could use the metaphorical kick in the butt that military service provides.


Lmao I ain't gonna fight and die for Raytheon or to help prop up the fiat system, no thank you sir


----------



## virus21

Short of WW 3 or an alien invasion, I ain't serving shit


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Lmao I ain't gonna fight and die for Raytheon or to help prop up the fiat system, no thank you sir


When Pooh Bear invades Taiwan in 2027 you'll be in one of the age brackets that won't get drafted until 2030 when the first units of T-51 power armor land in Manchuria anyway. Assuming the Anchorage Front Line has stabilized by then :draper2

In other news Baltimore's former mayor who resigned in May confirmed as a despicable racist, video of her riding through east Baltimore in 2018 complaining about the stench of the rat infestations and the dead animals littering the city. Who knew so many of these Democrats are secretly :trump


----------



## ScottyDawgg

It’s not like our military has a lack of personnel, it’s one of the largest militaries in the world, that’s why we don’t have a draft and haven’t need one for 46 years.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155891489228120066
A truly vile woman.


----------



## Draykorinee

Can someone explain how that tweet is about political violence because it looks like another pathetic snowflake smear job.

Edit: Read up on it, yeah, people just taking a joke by a comedian on twitter to mean she's advocating for violence, nothing to see here. These will be the same people who support Trumps constant calls and celebrations of violence against people or cheer when he mimes a reporter being attacked. 

State of American politics and WF posters.


----------



## CamillePunk

It's not a joke. Familiarize yourself with Tom Arnold a little better before making lazy defenses of members of your favorite protected class.


----------



## FriedTofu

TripleG said:


> It sounds crazy to us because there hasn't been a draft in decades, and mandatory service conflicts with the idea of Americans having the choice to make their own path in the world.
> 
> That said, mandatory military service wouldn't be the worst thing, at least for betterment of individuals.
> 
> I hate to say it, but a little discipline goes along way. If every US citizen at say age 21 had to serve one year in the military, they could learn a skill or two and learn how to deal with tough situations.
> 
> We'd probably have less basement dwellers and more capable adults in the real world.
> 
> It'll never happen because even suggesting it will cause a massive meltdown, and I'd have my own issues with it, but some people could use the metaphorical kick in the butt that military service provides.


As someone from a country with mandatory national service, I say that's a terrible idea. You are going to waste 1 to 2 years of your prime, give the military even more clout to waste tax payers money and magnify the class divide. How do you think bone spurs Trump avoided Vietnam in the first place? 

And like the reserve corps in America, you get called up annually to 'keep skills up to date' until a certain age and waste weeks doing stupid things for any years after the initial training is completed. The disruption to work life is horrible. You think resentment against foreigners is bad now in America? Imagine having real economic gripes against the system disadvantaging citizens against foreign workers in the workforce in your country.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> It's not a joke. Familiarize yourself with Tom Arnold a little better before making lazy defenses of members of your favorite protected class.


My favourite protected class? What weirdness is this? Please do explain who my favourite protected class is.

Stop with the lazy attacks on Omar bla bla.


----------



## skypod

Well I think it's obvious what the ticket is after last night. 


John Delaney/Tim Ryan 2020!


----------



## El Grappleador

Check this out:



> Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been making the rounds for his criticism of social media and big tech companies. Hawley has now proposed a bill to control “deceptive techniques” and to curb the addictive effects of social media.
> 
> The Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology (SMART) Act proposed by the Missouri senator would cripple social media companies as it would prevent them from implementing user engagement features such as infinite scroll, auto-play, and engagement-rewards such as streaks and trophies.
> 
> This bill proposes to ban several features implemented by top social networking sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat. Apart from removing a few features, the tech giants will also be compelled to integrate new user-friendly features and interfaces that help them fine-tune and optimize the amount of time spent on each social media platform.
> 
> “Big tech has embraced a business model of addiction. Too much of the ‘innovation’ in this space is designed not to create better products, but to capture more attention by using psychological tricks that make it difficult to look away,” said Sen. Hawley.
> 
> Here’s an overview of a few popular features that are proposed to be banned and deemed unlawful according to the SMART Act:
> 
> 1. “Infinite Scroll or Auto Refill”– This section of the bill refers to practices implemented by Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram in specific. The afore-mentioned apps provide infinite scroll option wherein content keeps loading without an external prompt from the user.
> 
> 2. “Elimination of Natural Stopping Points”– This aspect too, partly refers to infinite scroll feature where social media platforms load new content without the user explicitly requesting for new content.
> 
> 3. “Autoplay”– Playing audio or video content continuously without taking external prompts from the user in the form of a button or icon click. This aspect specifically highlights YouTube’s autoplay feature.
> 
> 4. “Badges and Other Awards Linked to Engagement with the Platform”– Awarding users with badges, trophies and more for staying active on a platform is considered unlawful. For instance, Snapchat’s ‘streak’ feature is one such engagement tactic that is to be banned according to this bill.
> 
> Hawley had proposed similar tech-related bills regarding aspects such as children’s online privacy, video game design, and more. As of now, this latest proposal doesn’t have any co-sponsors. While Hawley has garnered the support of several antitrust groups, neither of his legislations are seeing significant progress in Congress.


Brief thought: If banning features to social networks will make more responsible users, He should think it several times.


----------



## The Game

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156742841206370304
How satisfying was this!!!


----------



## Mr.Monkey

The Game said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156742841206370304
> How satisfying was this!!!


I was about to post this now. But I have to say i have a big freaking grin on my face that may not be removed for a while.


----------



## blaird

Gabbard son’d Harris and I thought Yang did well. Either of those would peak my interest to see a debate with them and trump. I have a feeling it’s gonna be Biden and either warren or Harris...yawn.

On a side note, IMO, Democrats gotta get off trump, we get it trump bad. We know the democrat base hates trump, we don’t need to be reminded. Discuss policy, leave trump out, although this may be hard to do.


----------



## Miss Sally

blaird said:


> Gabbard son’d Harris and I thought Yang did well. Either of those would peak my interest to see a debate with them and trump. I have a feeling it’s gonna be Biden and either warren or Harris...yawn.
> 
> On a side note, IMO, Democrats gotta get off trump, we get it trump bad. We know the democrat base hates trump, we don’t need to be reminded. Discuss policy, leave trump out, although this may be hard to do.


The whole anti-trump thing makes me wonder at times and reminds me of a discussion that took place on the forum. We were talking about the people who are the biggest homophobes and being anti-gay yet they end up being closet cases themselves.

The obsession with Trump makes me wonder if deep down they actually love him and wish they had a Politician like him. Some may argue no, then again the closet cases argue the same way when people point out their anti-gay obsession. :shrug

The fact they focus on Trump, not policies, not the people, you know the US Citizens makes me question it all.


----------



## Tater

The Game said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156742841206370304
> How satisfying was this!!!





Mr.Monkey said:


> I was about to post this now. But I have to say i have a big freaking grin on my face that may not be removed for a while.


I came in to post about this as well. Tulsi just beat the holy living hell out of Kamala. 

Here is the longer version:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156758387943718912
This is just glorious. I wish I could've seen the faces of all the Clinton donors who planned to rig this for Kamala when Tulsi came out with this brutal beatdown. Biden's been steadily going down since he announced. Tulsi might have just finished Kamala and might actually qualify for further debates as the field thins out. Bernie's I wrote the damn bill moment was epic. The establishment has to be freaking out right about now.

I'm not the first person to say it but watch out for establishment support getting behind fake progressive Warren if they can't force through Biden or Kamala.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156426449399816193

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156665119952310273
:lmao :lmao :lmao 

Tulsi bodying Kamala. :banderas


----------



## DaRealNugget

Tater said:


> I came in to post about this as well. Tulsi just beat the holy living hell out of Kamala.
> 
> Here is the longer version:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156758387943718912
> This is just glorious. I wish I could've seen the faces of all the Clinton donors who planned to rig this for Kamala when Tulsi came out with this brutal beatdown. Biden's been steadily going down since he announced. Tulsi might have just finished Kamala and might actually qualify for further debates as the field thins out. Bernie's I wrote the damn bill moment was epic. The establishment has to be freaking out right about now.
> 
> I'm not the first person to say it but watch out for establishment support getting behind fake progressive Warren if they can't force through Biden or Kamala.


:banderas

only watched highlights so far of today's debate, but i am filled with so much hope. between bernie and warren tag teaming centrist jobbers into irrelevancy on night 1, and biden getting annihilated + tulsi going for the kill on kamala on night 2, i am on an unnatural high.

we're going to get a progressive in the white house boys. :mark:

A Sanders/Gabbard ticket would be unstoppable.


----------



## Tater

DaRealNugget said:


> :banderas
> 
> only watched highlights so far of today's debate, but i am filled with so much hope. between bernie and warren tag teaming centrist jobbers into irrelevancy on night 1, and biden getting annihilated + tulsi going for the kill on kamala on night 2, i am on an unnatural high.
> 
> we're going to get a progressive in the white house boys. :mark:
> 
> A Sanders/Gabbard ticket would be unstoppable.


Don't get your hopes up too high. When the voting starts happening, there will be some heavy rigging going on. There will be lots of fuckery going on with changing polling places and closing some early or kicking people off voting rolls and downright changing votes in unaccountable black box voting machines. And if all of that doesn't get their choice in 1st, don't forget, if no one gets 50+1% of the delegates, then the super delegates get to vote and you know they would pick anyone not named Bernie. He could have 49% and Kamala or Biden could be in 2nd with 20% and the SDs could and probably would still give one of them the nomination, even with the full knowledge that doing so would guarantee another Trump win.

You're right though. A Sanders/Gabbard ticket would be the biggest landslide since Reagan vs Mondale... which is the establishment Dems' worst fear. Losing to Trump is preferable to Bernie and Tulsi beating the shit out of Trump and Pence. You know those Bernie/Trump debates would be entertaining as all hell but imagine Tulsi one on one vs Pence. Good god that would be incredible.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Kamala, Twitter, and Mr. Vanderbuilt Anderson Cooper all trying to use that played out Assad smear tactic after Tulsi did a Shang Tsung on Harris tonight.

And btw, fuck the fake ass Young Turks. What is Ana's beef with Tulsi? They prop up Warren and go out of their way to bash Tulsi. So glad Jimmy Dore and Jordan left their ass.

Tulsi/Sanders 2020!


----------



## Draykorinee

Tulsi is a dictator lover!!! 

Trump, sell some more weapons to Saudi, we need that monies...


----------



## deepelemblues

Biden needs some juvee juice

Call up the Hulkster brotherr

This desire to try to win the election by appealing to 20% of the voters against :trump appealing to 30% of the voters and both banking on a large "well the other side is worse" vote going their way is going to be interesting


----------



## Tater

TheLooseCanon said:


> Kamala, Twitter, and Mr. Vanderbuilt Anderson Cooper all trying to use that played out Assad smear tactic after Tulsi did a Shang Tsung on Harris tonight.
> 
> And btw, fuck the fake ass Young Turks. What is Ana's beef with Tulsi? They prop up Warren and go out of their way to bash Tulsi. So glad Jimmy Dore and Jordan left their ass.
> 
> Tulsi/Sanders 2020!


Seconded, fuck the fake ass Young Turks.

But... I did always defend Jimmy still working for them because they still have a large platform and at least the TYT viewers were getting the truth from Jimmy.

I'm happy that he's gone though because he's happier now. Jimmy missed the stage too much. Doing shows from his garage is great and all but you can see how much he enjoys being in front of a live audience when he posts clips from his live shows.

BTW, he's coming to Hawai'i Friday night December 27th and I'm going! Merry fucking Christmas to me!



Draykorinee said:


> Tulsi is a dictator lover!!!
> 
> Trump, sell some more weapons to Saudi, we need that monies...


Tulsi calling out Trump for supporting Al Qaeda via Saudi Arabia was fucking badass. More people need to know how the government has lied to everyone about that.


----------



## The Game

I'm high on Bernie/Tulsi or Bernie/Warren
I reckon either of those puts Trump down


----------



## Tater

The Game said:


> I'm high on Bernie/Tulsi or Bernie/Warren
> I reckon either of those puts Trump down


As much as I would love a Bernie/Tulsi ticket, honestly I'd rather have her as secretary of state because it's a more powerful position than VP and deals more with foreign policy. I would live with Warren as VP but I would not trust her at the top of the ticket.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Same. Warren is too hawkish for my taste, and has nothing to show for her 'fights against wall street and banks'. Just all talk, and still mad about 2016 where she left Bernie to fight for himself.

Meanwhile Tulsi left her position to endorse the man. If Bernie chooses Warren over Tulsi if he gets the nom, can't say I wouldn't be a bit pissed. You can also tell something is up with a candidate if the supposed leftist is getting so much praise from mainstream media. Seems like everybody is propping up Warren now. They smear Bernie and Tulsi, but think Warren is so great.

I'm ready for Bernie vs Trump, but what I wouldn't give to see Tulsi debate Trump. That would be gold.


----------



## Tater

TheLooseCanon said:


> Same. Warren is too hawkish for my taste, and has nothing to show for her 'fights against wall street and banks'. Just all talk, and still mad about 2016 where she left Bernie to fight for himself.
> 
> Meanwhile Tulsi left her position to endorse the man. If Bernie chooses Warren over Tulsi if he gets the nom, can't say I wouldn't be a bit pissed. You can also tell something is up with a candidate if the supposed leftist is getting so much praise from mainstream media. *Seems like everybody is propping up Warren now. They smear Bernie and Tulsi, but think Warren is so great.*
> 
> I'm ready for Bernie vs Trump, but what I wouldn't give to see Tulsi debate Trump. That would be gold.


This is the tell. The establishment does not smear Warren like they do Bernie and Tulsi. Don't listen to what she says. Listen to how they talk about her. They might prefer Harris but Warren would be an acceptable choice to them. Neither Bernie nor Tulsi are acceptable choices. They'd rather have another 4 years of Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> Don't get your hopes up too high. When the voting starts happening, there will be some heavy rigging going on. There will be lots of fuckery going on with changing polling places and closing some early or kicking people off voting rolls and downright changing votes in unaccountable black box voting machines. And if all of that doesn't get their choice in 1st, don't forget, if no one gets 50+1% of the delegates, then the super delegates get to vote and you know they would pick anyone not named Bernie. He could have 49% and Kamala or Biden could be in 2nd with 20% and the SDs could and probably would still give one of them the nomination, even with the full knowledge that doing so would guarantee another Trump win.
> 
> You're right though. A Sanders/Gabbard ticket would be the biggest landslide since Reagan vs Mondale... which is the establishment Dems' worst fear. Losing to Trump is preferable to Bernie and Tulsi beating the shit out of Trump and Pence. You know those Bernie/Trump debates would be entertaining as all hell but imagine Tulsi one on one vs Pence. Good god that would be incredible.


Everyone knows only Republicans rig elections, so you have nothing to worry about. :x




TheLooseCanon said:


> Kamala, Twitter, and Mr. Vanderbuilt Anderson Cooper all trying to use that played out Assad smear tactic after Tulsi did a Shang Tsung on Harris tonight.
> 
> And btw, fuck the fake ass Young Turks. What is Ana's beef with Tulsi? They prop up Warren and go out of their way to bash Tulsi. So glad Jimmy Dore and Jordan left their ass.
> 
> Tulsi/Sanders 2020!


TYT have always been corporate puppets and questionable, FFS their name comes from a genocidal group. This is like asking why a group named the "Hitler Youth" have some odd agendas about them. Ana is bffs with someone who denies the Armenian genocide while being Armenian herself, do you really need to ask why Ana does what she does? :laugh:


----------



## njcam

TheLooseCanon said:


> I'm ready for Bernie vs Trump, but what I wouldn't give to see Tulsi debate Trump. That would be gold.


Now, that would be something.

I'm impressed with Tulsi Gabbard.


----------



## Dr. Middy

I marked for Tulsi essentially going mortal kombat on Harris :lol 

But of course the assad thing is brought up to absolutely nobody's surprise, because it's clear the media want Warren or Harris. Shame because Tulsi could be one of the ones who with actual good backing could make a great run at the presidency, at least I think so. She's too anti-establishment it seems and doesn't fit the right narrative (harping on how unneeded US foreign involvement has led to many of our problems was a death with sadly).

Meanwhile, I see all of the shit police are doing with no accountability and I wonder how much worse they'll get with a failure of a fucking prosecutor in Kamala Harris. 

If that's what they want, they might as well just give the win to Trump now.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Everyone covering for Kamala by attacking Tulsi and trying their best to delegitamize her, yet none of them can refute what she actually said.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156820372093845504
They don't care about the facts or about policy. They're just fans of Kamala Harris.


----------



## MrMister

Tulsi's KO of Harris was pretty great.

:lmao that tinfoil regarding Tulsi.


There is no way any of these people can take on Trump on TV. It's looking grim early for the Dems.


----------



## Kabraxal

Man... I feel like I've been watching a sport these past few weeks. We've turned politics into theatre completely at this point. Waiting for the fist fights on the house and senate floors soon. Maybe even some flying chairs.


----------



## MrMister

Kabraxal said:


> Man... I feel like I've been watching a sport these past few weeks. We've turned politics into theatre completely at this point. Waiting for the fist fights on the house and senate floors soon. Maybe even some flying chairs.


I want duels to the death in the Thunderdome.


----------



## Kabraxal

MrMister said:


> I want duels to the death in the Thunderdome.


Winner's bill gets passed! This sunday, only on PPV.


..... you know, it's scary how close that shit is to being not satire. I remember watching Brazil and Running man recently and being quite put off by how close to reality they were getting. Those were dystopian satires damn it... not a road map to follow <_<


----------



## deepelemblues

You can't handwave Tulsi making excuses for Assad by crying conspiracy theory warmongering yadda yadda yadda

It's the same conceit that deluded the Ron Paul campaign in 2008, along with the conceit that war being unpopular means dusting off old KGB agitprop statements lambasting the US and giving them a modern veneer is going to be popular

Doesn't work that way. Didn't work for the good doctor, isn't going to work for Tulsi

The correct way to do it is the way the president did it. Lambast inept rulers being incompetent in getting into and fighting wars while at the same time waving the flag and making a clear distinction between the rulers and the country

:trump is going to toss any of these people into the dumpster if they don't get a lot slicker. Describing employer provided health insurance as being your employer forcing the coverage they want on you is not going to work when 70-80% of Americans who have it are satisfied with it. Promising daisies and ponies with Medicare for all and resolutely ignoring the cost or lying that it can all be paid for by 'the rich' is leaving :trump a fat one hanging waist high over the plate. Open borders geez just concede the election now if youre seriously going to dig in on that hill. These policies being promoted are unpopular or are being promoted in ham fisted ways. That leaves getting personal and that's right in the president's wheelhouse too :draper2


----------



## ShiningStar

Everyone is missing the boat on Mayor Pete,he has the Obamaesque abilitity to sound thoughtful while actually taking no opinion. He is the candidate Beto,Copmala and Little Marco always wanted to be but don't got the skill for.


----------



## deepelemblues

ShiningStar said:


> Everyone is missing the boat on Mayor Pete,he has the Obamaesque abilitity to sound thoughtful while actually taking no opinion. He is the candidate Beto,Copmala and Little Marco always wanted to be but don't got the skill for.


I kinda hope he's the nominee just so I have an excuse to post these about a thousand times:


----------



## CamillePunk

Tulsi would be wasted as a VP. I wanted Trump to make her Secretary of State back in 2016, when I had hopes that he wouldn't just appoint a bunch of neocon warmongers and corporatists throughout his cabinet.

I still think a neoliberal wins the primary btw. Tulsi absolutely bodied Kamala for sure, but most voters will forget about it when it matters, and will largely accept the corporate media spin.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Tulsi would be wasted as a VP. I wanted Trump to make her Secretary of State back in 2016, when I had hopes that he wouldn't just appoint a bunch of neocon warmongers and corporatists throughout his cabinet.
> 
> I still think a neoliberal wins the primary btw. Tulsi absolutely bodied Kamala for sure, but most voters will forget about it when it matters, and will largely accept the corporate media spin.


She's got over 128k of the 130k unique donors she needs to qualify for the 3rd debate. If she can survive until they have cut the field down to everyone remaining on one stage instead of this two night shit, watch the fuck out. Now she is even calling out MSDNC for trying to smear her as an Assad apologist basically every time she has appeared there over the past 3 years. Told some useless talking head that it sounded like she is reading a prompter sent from the Kamala camp. Tulsi ain't fucking playing their stupid games anymore. The gloves are off and this badass bitch is coming for blood.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157134085384548352

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157056720016834560


----------



## njcam




----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Tater said:


> She's got over 128k of the 130k unique donors she needs to qualify for the 3rd debate. If she can survive until they have cut the field down to everyone remaining on one stage instead of this two night shit, watch the fuck out. Now she is even calling out MSDNC for trying to smear her as an Assad apologist basically every time she has appeared there over the past 3 years. Told some useless talking head that it sounded like she is reading a prompter sent from the Kamala camp. Tulsi ain't fucking playing their stupid games anymore. The gloves are off and this badass bitch is coming for blood.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157134085384548352
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157056720016834560


Meanwhile on Fox News.. Tucker Carlson continues to just becomes the Tulsi Gabbard commercial machine.

I am legit wondering, when did this start, it wasn't just the anti-war thing, Carlson lets her talk about whatever is on her mind. Like Dems can not be ok with this, right?


----------



## Miss Sally

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Meanwhile on Fox News.. Tucker Carlson continues to just becomes the Tulsi Gabbard commercial machine.
> 
> I am legit wondering, when did this start, it wasn't just the anti-war thing, Carlson lets her talk about whatever is on her mind. Like Dems can not be ok with this, right?


Dems actually hate it. FOX is giving candidates like Tulsi, Sanders and Yang better coverage than CNN, ABC, MSNBC. That's absolutely sad!

Tucker is great because he absolutely just lets Tulsi say whatever she wants, rarely interrupts her and let's her say whatever she wants. :laugh:


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Miss Sally said:


> Dems actually hate it. FOX is giving candidates like Tulsi, Sanders and Yang better coverage than CNN, ABC, MSNBC. That's absolutely sad!
> 
> Tucker is great because he absolutely just lets Tulsi say whatever she wants, rarely interrupts her and let's her say whatever she wants. :laugh:


It is night and day from what she got on Bill Maher or MSNBC.

Yang will have a 75 minute interview with a homeless dog if it means he becomes president, I do like that about him. And I love his Terminator "The robots are taking over" conspiracy

But Tucker firmly has lips wrapped around Tulsi's member(Am I allowed to say that) Check pout this interview, where he damn near cried about how great she is to her


----------



## Miss Sally

DMD Mofomagic said:


> It is night and day from what she got on Bill Maher or MSNBC.
> 
> Yang will have a 75 minute interview with a homeless dog if it means he becomes president, I do like that about him. And I love his Terminator "The robots are taking over" conspiracy
> 
> But Tucker firmly has lips wrapped around Tulsi's member(Am I allowed to say that) Check pout this interview, where he damn near cried about how great she is to her


In before they're having an affair. :laugh:


----------



## DaRealNugget

nytimes released a heatmap of where the donors are coming from for the individual candidates, and who has the most in each county. neoliberal pundits and corporate stooges say we should elect someone with a broad appeal. well...










eat shit, establishment.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Here's what got me fukked up. If those allegations Tulsi made against Kamala are true, doesn't that make her a wholly evil person? I mean withholding evidence that could have freed inmates on death row? That's next level corruption, and she didn't even attempt to refute that point so I can only assume there's some truth to it.

For 3 years all we've heard every day... on every channel... on every show... by everyone... is how evil of a person Donald Trump is and how evil republicans are for supporting him. And yet here you have Kamala Harris being exposed on national television as a cold hearted supervillain and nobody gives a shit. The worst thing anyone can say about her is that she had a bad debate night.

Why wasn't this the leading story on 'The View'? Why wasn't Joy Behar there to lecture me on why I shouldn't support Kamala Harris? Why isn't Whoopie calling her out on her truly heinous and evil conduct? The purity police are so busy condemning Trump... but what about Harris?


----------



## Kabraxal

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Here's what got me fukked up. If those allegations Tulsi made against Kamala are true, doesn't that make her a wholly evil person? I mean withholding evidence that could have freed inmates on death row? That's next level corruption, and she didn't even attempt to refute that point so I can only assume there's some truth to it.
> 
> For 3 years all we've heard every day... on every channel... on every show... by everyone... is how evil of a person Donald Trump is and how evil republicans are for supporting him. And yet here you have Kamala Harris being exposed on national television as a cold hearted supervillain and nobody gives a shit. The worst thing anyone can say about her is that she had a bad debate night.
> 
> Why wasn't this the leading story on 'The View'? Why wasn't Joy Behar there to lecture me on why I shouldn't support Kamala Harris? Why isn't Whoopie calling her out on her truly heinous and evil conduct? The purity police are so busy condemning Trump... but what about Harris?


Several reasons:

She's a Democrat.
She's a woman.
She's a minority.

In the forum of identity politics, that is the absolute holy messiah that cannot be contradicted. Add in a healthy dose of cronyism and establishment networking and you have the perfect storm for a candidate to be fellated by the media. 

I might not like some of the candidates the democrats have put up, but even Warren, as fake and establishment as they come, does not come across as Hillary 2.0. Harris is just a younger version of that monster. If it comes to her versus Trump I will fucking laugh my ass off. This country will have learned nothing.


----------



## MrMister

Kabraxal said:


> Several reasons:
> 
> She's a Democrat.
> She's a woman.
> She's a minority.
> 
> In the forum of identity politics, that is the absolute holy messiah that cannot be contradicted. Add in a healthy dose of cronyism and establishment networking and you have the perfect storm for a candidate to be fellated by the media.
> 
> I might not like some of the candidates the democrats have put up, but even Warren, as fake and establishment as they come, does not come across as Hillary 2.0. Harris is just a younger version of that monster. If it comes to her versus Trump I will fucking laugh my ass off. This country will have learned nothing.


It's not going to be Harris. Tulsi is going finish her off. Of course it'll be because Tulsi is a Russian agent and Murica is sexist and racist, but reality isn't something a Kamala Harris voter is in touch with.

Final three has to be Warren, Sanders and Biden. Biden is the shakiest of those three. He's been pretty bad.


----------



## Kabraxal

MrMister said:


> It's not going to be Harris. Tulsi is going finish her off. Of course it'll be because Tulsi is a Russian agent and Murica is sexist and racist, but reality isn't something a Kamala Harris voter is in touch with.
> 
> Final three has to be Warren, Sanders and Biden. Biden is the shakiest of those three. He's been pretty bad.


Sounds about right, though I could see Gabbard making a push with people distrustful of the media and the establishment. Will it be enough to propel her into that top tier? Probably not. Seems you need a little more celebrity for that. I think the "best" candidates, based on policy, are Gabbard and Yang. That's not saying much though. Both hold a few policies that I am dead set against.

Probably will not be voting in this election at all.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Kabraxal said:


> Several reasons:
> 
> She's a Democrat.
> She's a woman.
> She's a minority.
> 
> In the forum of identity politics, that is the absolute holy messiah that cannot be contradicted. Add in a healthy dose of cronyism and establishment networking and you have the perfect storm for a candidate to be fellated by the media.
> 
> I might not like some of the candidates the democrats have put up, but even Warren, as fake and establishment as they come, does not come across as Hillary 2.0. Harris is just a younger version of that monster. If it comes to her versus Trump I will fucking laugh my ass off. This country will have learned nothing.


All I know is that:

Criticizing a congressman over his district = red alert 24/7 coverage about our evil, racist commander in chief.

Blocking and witholding evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row = ...........


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> It's not going to be Harris. Tulsi is going finish her off. Of course it'll be because Tulsi is a Russian agent and Murica is sexist and racist, but reality isn't something a Kamala Harris voter is in touch with.
> 
> Final three has to be Warren, Sanders and Biden. Biden is the shakiest of those three. He's been pretty bad.


They're already pushing the Russian narrative. Seriously. More Russian bullshit.


----------



## skypod

Berzerker's Beard said:


> All I know is that:
> 
> Criticizing a congressman over his district = red alert 24/7 coverage about our evil, racist commander in chief.
> 
> Blocking and witholding evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row = ...........




Yeah cause that's the one wrong step Trump has made to prove he's evil.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Trump and Harris can both enjoy cancerous deaths.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> Yeah cause that's the one wrong step Trump has made to prove he's evil.
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right. Trump and Harris can both enjoy cancerous deaths.


Well if the accusations are true and Kamala Harris purposefully withheld evidence so that an inmate on death row couldn't be freed, that is the same as attempted murder in my book.

Say what you will about Trump, but I don't see anyone accusing him of attempted murder.


----------



## Tater

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Meanwhile on Fox News.. Tucker Carlson continues to just becomes the Tulsi Gabbard commercial machine.
> 
> I am legit wondering, when did this start, it wasn't just the anti-war thing, Carlson lets her talk about whatever is on her mind. Like Dems can not be ok with this, right?


I don't know what it is about Tucker, especially being on FOX, being allowed to tell the truth about war, but it's been happening for awhile now. It's not just with Tulsi either. He's had other lefties on his show as well. Just this past week he released a video in support of Glenn Greenwald, who has been receiving death threats in Brazil for exposing the corruption of the Bolsonaro crew.

I still probably disagree with Tucker on 90% of his opinions but he is the best person the MSM has to offer right now.



Berzerker's Beard said:


> Here's what got me fukked up. If those allegations Tulsi made against Kamala are true, doesn't that make her a wholly evil person? I mean withholding evidence that could have freed inmates on death row? That's next level corruption, and she didn't even attempt to refute that point so I can only assume there's some truth to it.
> 
> For 3 years all we've heard every day... on every channel... on every show... by everyone... is how evil of a person Donald Trump is and how evil republicans are for supporting him. And yet here you have Kamala Harris being exposed on national television as a cold hearted supervillain and nobody gives a shit. The worst thing anyone can say about her is that she had a bad debate night.
> 
> Why wasn't this the leading story on 'The View'? Why wasn't Joy Behar there to lecture me on why I shouldn't support Kamala Harris? Why isn't Whoopie calling her out on her truly heinous and evil conduct? The purity police are so busy condemning Trump... but what about Harris?


Trump deserves to be condemned for being a corrupt war mongering piece of shit and Harris deserves to be condemned for all the horrific things she did in California. 

You already know why they hate Trump and love Harris. Trump exposes the ugly face of the empire and with Harris they at least thought they had someone who could put a smiley face back on the status quo.

Protecting the status quo is all the establishment really cares about. Tulsi threw a serious wrench in their plans by completely destroying Kamala. If they can't get her over, watch for them to switch their support to fake progressive Warren.



Kabraxal said:


> Several reasons:
> 
> She's a Democrat.
> She's a woman.
> She's a minority.
> 
> In the forum of identity politics, *that is the absolute holy messiah that cannot be contradicted*. Add in a healthy dose of cronyism and establishment networking and you have the perfect storm for a candidate to be fellated by the media.
> 
> I might not like some of the candidates the democrats have put up, but even Warren, as fake and establishment as they come, does not come across as Hillary 2.0. Harris is just a younger version of that monster. If it comes to her versus Trump I will fucking laugh my ass off. This country will have learned nothing.


Not true. Tulsi also meets these 3 criteria and you see how they treat her. Democrats only use identity politics when it is convenient. In no way is it some holy grail that cannot be contradicted.



MrMister said:


> It's not going to be Harris. Tulsi is going finish her off. Of course it'll be because Tulsi is a Russian agent and Murica is sexist and racist, but reality isn't something a Kamala Harris voter is in touch with.
> 
> Final three has to be Warren, Sanders and Biden. Biden is the shakiest of those three. He's been pretty bad.


I still think Warren and Sanders will be in it at the end. Not so sure about Biden. He's steadily been losing support since entering the race and now at least one megadonor has abandoned ship. I've always believed they only trotted him out there not to win but just so they would not have to call Bernie the front runner and buy them time to push Kamala. Before Tulsi torched Kamala and left her a smoldering corpse, I would have had her in the final 3. Now I'm not so sure.

Tulsi really is the wild card here. Looks like she will make the 3rd round and beyond that who knows but as long as she is able to get on that stage, she is an extreme danger to the establishment.


----------



## DesolationRow

Kamala Harris's dismissal of Tulsi Gabbard's statements with her "fancy speeches" rhetoric signposted that we are dealing with a Colonel Jessup-from-_A Few Good Men_-level sociopath, which means she will probably be the Democrats' nominee. Always put money on the most ruthless and conscienceless in politics.


@Tater; is correct, though, that Elizabeth Warren is fairly obviously the "backup plan" for establishment Democrat donors in case Harris _does_ crash and burn following Gabbard's scorched-earth assault on her this week.


----------



## 2 Ton 21




----------



## TheLooseCanon

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Here's what got me fukked up. If those allegations Tulsi made against Kamala are true, doesn't that make her a wholly evil person? I mean withholding evidence that could have freed inmates on death row? That's next level corruption, and she didn't even attempt to refute that point so I can only assume there's some truth to it.
> 
> For 3 years all we've heard every day... on every channel... on every show... by everyone... is how evil of a person Donald Trump is and how evil republicans are for supporting him. And yet here you have Kamala Harris being exposed on national television as a cold hearted supervillain and nobody gives a shit. The worst thing anyone can say about her is that she had a bad debate night.
> 
> Why wasn't this the leading story on 'The View'? Why wasn't Joy Behar there to lecture me on why I shouldn't support Kamala Harris? Why isn't Whoopie calling her out on her truly heinous and evil conduct? The purity police are so busy condemning Trump... but what about Harris?


She's an establishment politician. Born and bred through the Clinton campaign.

When a progressive attacks her (Tulsi), they focus on bashing the progressive instead.

It's the 'Bernie is sexist' shit.

Dems, Reps, and the corporate donors that has the media and politicians in those 2 corrupted parties don't want to give up power.

They don't want Tulsi and Bernie to take over. They will red scare anybody that is a threat.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

The path for the establishment from the beginning was clear:

Get Harris and Booker to adopt the progressive stance, since most people don't know that they are fakes, Booker being the biggest lapdog of Wall Street.

Burn Tulsi as soon as she announced with smears (literally the day she announced, fake articles was written about her connection to Russia).

Having fake progressives to go against Bernie would hopefully divide the vote there, so Biden can cruise to victory.

Biden sucks, so they threw him under the bus for Harris. They got Warren as a 'last result' in case it comes down to Bernie vs Warren. They can live with Warren, since she is easily swayed. 

It's going to be a fight. The people for Bernie/Tulsi vs the establishment. I just hope with Tulsi there, she won't lay down and take it like Bernie in 2016.

If Bernie loses the nom, Tulsi needs to team up with Yang for a 3rd party run.


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> Kamala Harris's dismissal of Tulsi Gabbard's statements with her "fancy speeches" rhetoric signposted that we are dealing with a Colonel Jessup-from-_A Few Good Men_-level sociopath, which means she will probably be the Democrats' nominee. Always put money on the most ruthless and conscienceless in politics.
> 
> 
> @Tater; is correct, though, that Elizabeth Warren is fairly obviously the "backup plan" for establishment Democrat donors in case Harris _does_ crash and burn following Gabbard's scorched-earth assault on her this week.


If the only thing Tulsi accomplishes in this run is taking out Kamala, I would call that a victory. I consider Kamala as the nominee as the worst case scenario. Having her in the WH would lead to worse outcomes than had Hillary won last time. And I think she would probably win. She does not inspire disgust in people as much as Hillary mainly because people do not know her well enough. Those that do... well... let's just hope Tulsi leaves her a smoldering corpse.



2 Ton 21 said:


>


This is a good take on why Tulsi holds the foreign policy positions that she does. Would recommend.



TheLooseCanon said:


> If Bernie loses the nom, Tulsi needs to team up with Yang for a 3rd party run.


I disagree with this for a couple of reasons. While I do believe the establishment Dems would rather intentionally sink the party than ever cede control to the left, it is not the right time and place for Tulsi to try to run for the WH outside the duopoly. It's something Bernie could and should have done last time but this is not last time and Tulsi is not at Bernie's level yet. Best case scenario for her if Bernie does not get the nom is to simply keep her seat in the House. She does not have to announce her intentions to run for the seat until next spring or so, well into the primary voting for the nominee. Either she will have skyrocketed since then or she will be out. If she is out, that seat is hers as long as she wants it because she wins all her primary and general races with 75-80% of the vote. She would be more effective with 2 more House terms and running again in 4 years than she would be as a failed 3rd party candidate with no elected position in Washington.

Secondly, Yang is a fraud. Do not get suckered in by his version of UBI. He's not a lefty. His plan is a right wing libertarian plan in disguise that would screw the poor more than it would help them. Do not fall for it.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157303994630279170
He's just being a comedian you guys. :nerd: Definitely someone a congresswoman should be retweeting when they advocate violence.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157235590963896320
:lol


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157530461641379840
:fuckyeah

Tulsi will be in the 3rd round. The establishment should be terrified.

Oh and get this, as many know, she is still an active member of the National Guard. She will be in Indonesia on a training mission for 2 weeks this month. The next debate is not until September. If played right, that could give her a serious boost in support. She should come back from the training mission and say something like... while Kamala and Biden were sucking up to big money donors, I was halfway around the world serving our country in the National Guard. :mark:


----------



## Draykorinee

Good to see my comedian friend making jokes, congress women should retweet him more. 

Even better to see tulsi get in to the next round, very lucky Russia bots are getting her through.


----------



## CamillePunk

7:00 CNN making Kamala re-live being utterly decimated by Tulsi. :lmao :done 

Beautiful. This is the only good thing CNN has done.

The more I think about it the more I see Kamala as less of a threat to Trump now. Not because of the content of what Tulsi said - because make no mistake no "journalist" will ever press her on any of it - but because of her response both during and after the debate. She was completely unprepared and floundered, and then afterwards deflected by bizarrely calling herself a "top tier candidate". This is the opposite of persuasion.

I think Trump would eat her alive 1-on-1. 

I'm not sure Bernie or Warren will have the balls to hit her in the same way Tulsi has, which is unfortunate because it will really come down to that as Tulsi just doesn't have the support to make it to the late stages of this primary.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

What makes it even better is that Kamala can't use the race or the gender card in her defense. You know she's livid that Tulsi had to be the first one to make this an issue and not one of her white male opponents. Now she can't deflect and hurl baseless accusations.

A democratic debater with no race/gender card to play is pretty much the equivalent of a wrestler without a finisher or any signature moves. It's what they need to get over. Without it they are useless.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> 7:00 CNN making Kamala re-live being utterly decimated by Tulsi. :lmao :done
> 
> Beautiful. This is the only good thing CNN has done.
> 
> The more I think about it the more I see Kamala as less of a threat to Trump now. Not because of the content of what Tulsi said - because make no mistake no "journalist" will ever press her on any of it - but because of her response both during and after the debate. She was completely unprepared and floundered, and then afterwards deflected by bizarrely calling herself a "top tier candidate". This is the opposite of persuasion.
> 
> I think Trump would eat her alive 1-on-1.
> 
> I'm not sure Bernie or Warren will have the balls to hit her in the same way Tulsi has, which is unfortunate because it will really come down to that as *Tulsi just doesn't have the support to make it to the late stages of this primary.*


She's gone from under 130k unique donors to over 150k in a matter of days. I'm starting to get my hopes up a little bit. I still don't think she has any real chance of winning but it's starting to look like she may last a lot longer than most thought and every debate she qualifies for is a bad day for the establishment.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158211690103627776


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Berzerker's Beard said:


> What makes it even better is that* Kamala can't use the race or the gender card in her defense.* You know she's livid that Tulsi had to be the first one to make this an issue and not one of her white male opponents. Now she can't deflect and hurl baseless accusations.
> 
> A democratic debater with no race/gender card to play is pretty much the equivalent of a wrestler without a finisher or any signature moves. It's what they need to get over. Without it they are useless.


:ha.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156820372093845504
Joy Reid is already saying that Tulsi seems to be "targeting" Kamala because Kamala is black.

Tulsi doesnt have enough melanin for the die hards.


----------



## DesolationRow

DMD Mofomagic said:


> :ha.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156820372093845504
> Joy Reid is already saying that Tulsi seems to be "targeting" Kamala because Kamala is black.
> 
> Tulsi doesnt have enough melanin for the die hards.


:lol


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...-properties-and-keeping-cash-ready-2019-08-05



> The superrich are selling stocks, buying properties and keeping cash ready
> 
> Published: Aug 5, 2019 3:13 p.m. ET
> 
> Critical information for the U.S. trading day
> 
> The superrich blueprint to navigating this hairy stock market: Tap the brakes and get ready to pounce when it all goes to hell.
> 
> And by the looks of Monday’s action, hell might not be too far away.
> 
> In the first quarter, Tiger 21, a coalition of 750 members worth in excess of $75 billion, raised cash to levels not seen since 2013. Not much changed in the second quarter in terms of keeping powder dry. The group’s holding 12% in cash.
> 
> What has changed, however, is that these deep-pocketed investors, in the call of the day, are continuing to move away from equities and build up their positions in real estate. As Tiger 21 President Michael Sonnenfeldt previously told MarketWatch, the stock market is “‘priced to perfection’ and rising economic inequality leading to greater polarization in America and elsewhere.”
> 
> Here’s the latest allocation:


An intriguing article concerning many of the activities ongoing today on Wall Street. It does not demand a "course correction" but many are steeling themselves for same nonetheless.


----------



## Stephen90

Tater said:


> She's gone from under 130k unique donors to over 150k in a matter of days. I'm starting to get my hopes up a little bit. I still don't think she has any real chance of winning but it's starting to look like she may last a lot longer than most thought and every debate she qualifies for is a bad day for the establishment.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158211690103627776


Good it was non stop coverage of Trump that helped him get elected.


----------



## yeahbaby!

White politicians are so hard done by! Double Standards! Sad!

:trump


----------



## CamillePunk

Hundreds of people volunteer to clean up streets in Baltimore.  Credit to Scott Presler, a huge Trump supporter for organizing the clean-up. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-clean-up-city-streets-after-trump-criticisms


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158427368781950976

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158526924160978945


----------



## Draykorinee

Is this satire? Who gives a fuck who a person supports when they organise street cleaning lol.

We're right down in the gutter of this constitutes political news.


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> :lol
> 
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...-properties-and-keeping-cash-ready-2019-08-05
> 
> 
> 
> An intriguing article concerning many of the activities ongoing today on Wall Street. It does not demand a "course correction" but many are steeling themselves for same nonetheless.


There is definitely a crash coming and it is entirely unsurprising that there are some rich people preparing to profit from it. I think the part that is being missed is that most everyone else, meaning the not rich, still have not recovered from the last crash. A majority of Americans are struggling to get by as it is and they don't have anything to fall back on, what little they did, like last time. The next crash is going to make the Great Recession from a decade ago look like a walk in the park. The banks and various mega corps in need will get their trillions in bailouts, just like last time. And everyone else will be fucked. 

The biggest question then becomes whether or not Americans take it in the ass like last time or if they will actually get off their lazy asses and do something about it.

If I was a betting man, it would be on the former, but the hope in me is on the latter.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Is this satire? Who gives a fuck who a person supports when they organise street cleaning lol.
> 
> We're right down in the gutter of this constitutes political news.


Triggered. :lol

Wasn't just the organizer who supports Trump, if you cared to look any closer.


----------



## Tater

Awwwwwwwssssssshhhittttttttt. Bernie on Rogan. That is gold, Jerry! Gold!


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this satire? Who gives a fuck who a person supports when they organise street cleaning lol.
> 
> We're right down in the gutter of this constitutes political news.
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't just the organizer who supports Trump, if you cared to look any closer.
Click to expand...

Who cares if trump supporters pick up rubbish? I would say get out of the gutter but you don't care about being there, that's why you use terms like triggered when someone mocks you.

Not sure why you're getting so desperate?


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Who cares if trump supporters pick up rubbish? I would say get out of the gutter but you don't care about being there, that's why you use terms like triggered when someone mocks you.
> 
> Not sure why you're getting so desperate?


I posted a feel-good story about people picking up trash and you're so uselessly cynical you had to whine about it. :lol Take the L and try to be less cynical in the future. 


Pretty good Bernie interview with Joe Rogan. He should stick to policies and talking about ways to help people rather than engage in Russian conspiracy theories and hysterically labeling the president a racist sexist homophobe in lock-step with the corporate media and Democratic establishment that absolutely hate and smear him all the time.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if trump supporters pick up rubbish? I would say get out of the gutter but you don't care about being there, that's why you use terms like triggered when someone mocks you.
> 
> Not sure why you're getting so desperate?
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a feel-good story about people picking up trash and you're so uselessly cynical you had to whine about it. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" /> Take the L and try to be less cynical in the future.
> 
> 
> Pretty good Bernie interview with Joe Rogan. He should stick to policies and talking about ways to help people rather than engage in Russian conspiracy theories and hysterically labeling the president a racist sexist homophobe in lock-step with the corporate media and Democratic establishment that absolutely hate and smear him all the time.
Click to expand...

Maybe of you weren't so uselessly partisan you wouldn't need to share nonsense puff pieces under the guise of a feel good story. A person's political identity should nearly always be utterly irrelevant if they're being charitable.

You know what you did and now you're being dishonest about it.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Maybe of you weren't so uselessly partisan you wouldn't need to share nonsense puff pieces under the guise of a feel good story. A person's political identity should nearly always be utterly irrelevant if they're being charitable.
> 
> You know what you did and now you're being dishonest about it.


He's a pro-Trump activist and many of the people who showed up were also pro-Trump. Their political affiliation is not irrelevant, especially given the wild distortion of Trump's comments about Baltimore by the media. For someone who follows another country's politics so closely, I'm surprised how ignorant you are about this. 

You won't be policing what content I post, no matter how upsetting it is to your delicate sensibilities.  You don't see me trying to police what anyone else posts.

Also completely baseless of you to accuse me of dishonesty. There was no dishonesty.


----------



## Tater

If someone is cleaning up the streets by picking up trash, I am not going to criticize them for it. There's some pretty shady circumstances surrounding it though. Trump calling Baltimore a shithole is not a very presidential thing to do. Regardless of how true that statement may or may not be, he is the president of the country where that shithole exists and has done nothing to solve the problem.

I can't say how much or little the Trump supporter who organized it used it as a political stunt but I cannot criticize him for the act itself. It's nice seeing people come together to make this country a better place. That's something I advocate for as well.

Something I would criticize is a city being so underfunded that they cannot afford to pay people to keep the streets clean. It really pisses me off when I see trash lying around Hawai'i. We have a beautiful island paradise and you sorry mother fuckers can't find a trash can? It's not nearly as bad here as some places I've seen but c'mon.

The real problem with stuff like this is that Republicans and Democrats in general are not willing to make the changes needed to permanently solve these problems. People coming together to pick up trash is a nice story in a bubble but it has done nothing to stop the streets from being filled up with trash again once they go home.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> He's a pro-Trump activist and many of the people who showed up were also pro-Trump.


And? Some weren't, why not say mixture of political persuasions meet to collect rubbish in Baltimore? Because you wren't just sharing a feel good story you were sharing a puff piece.
If you had made this a story about people from all sides coming togetehr under a Trump supporter, maybe that would have made some sense to post.


> You won't be policing what content I post, no matter how upsetting it is to your delicate sensibilities.  You don't see me trying to police what anyone else posts.


Yeah, I mocked you, I'm sorry that made you feel bad but you can post any dumb stuff you want, stop being dishonest and claiming I'm telling you want you can and can't post.



> Also completely baseless of you to accuse me of dishonesty. There was no dishonesty.


You said you were just sharing a feel good story, now you say you you were sharing it to hihglight Trump supporters positive actions. Its a real sad state of affairs when charitable work clearing up an impoverished part of a city needs to be politicised.



Tater said:


> I can't say how much or little the Trump supporter who organized it used it as a political stunt but I cannot criticize him for the act itself.


Looking at his twitter he didn't feel the need to highlight he was a trump supporter for the event. He rightfully just used it as a none partisan charitable event. He has since used to it to highlight his movement a bit more and went on Fox etc, but I do feel like he's trying to not be "Look I'm a Trump supporter and we're the only ones doing anything' he genuinely wants to help.

Didn't stop the usual twitter idiots going 'hur dur where are the dems' when this was full of people of all persuasions and the moto was #Americanshelpingamericans, but that needs to be turned in to blue vs red, because of course it does.

The guy has fabulous hair.


----------



## Tater

Draykorinee said:


> Looking at his twitter he didn't feel the need to highlight he was a trump supporter for the event. He rightfully just used it as a none partisan charitable event.
> 
> Didn't stop the usual twitter idiots going 'hur dur where are the dems' when this was full of people of all persuasions and the moto was #Americanshelpingamericans, but that needs to be turned in to blue vs red, because of course it does.


An America divided and treating their neighbors as their enemies is an America that cannot unite against the ruling elite who work so hard to keep them divided.


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> An America divided and treating their neighbors as their enemies is an America that cannot unite against the ruling elite who work so hard to keep them divided.


Aye, the guy did a good deed with 170 other people, and he's embracing it and trying to make change, full credit to him, Americanshelping Americans doesn't need partisanship added to it. I would say the exact same of Bernie supporters if people are confusing double standards.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/diabe...er-taking-cheaper-insulin-to-pay-for-wedding/



> When Josh Wilkerson turned 26, he aged out of his stepfather’s private health insurance and he was unable to afford his nearly $1,200-a-month insulin.
> 
> He began rationing his pricey prescription brand, before a doctor recommended taking ReliOn, an over-the-counter brand sold for $25 a vial at Walmart.
> 
> “It didn’t work for his body,” his mom, Erin Wilson-Weaver, tells The Post. Her son died June 14, and she’s still in mourning — but determined to advocate in his memory.


1st world country having 3rd world problems.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> :lol
> 
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...-properties-and-keeping-cash-ready-2019-08-05
> 
> 
> 
> An intriguing article concerning many of the activities ongoing today on Wall Street. It does not demand a "course correction" but many are steeling themselves for same nonetheless.


The Chinese Government has been buying up loads of property in the US and Canada. Both countries are very, very eager to sell the super rich and foreign Governments land. 

When people started saving up gold/silver etc, the rich also started buying it all up. Let's face it, paper money is worthless, property, precious stones and metals will always have value. The super rich will always remain rich even if the dollar has zero value. Much like during the great Depression, the rich will just buy up all the cheap goods and control more!

At this point feudalism isn't far off, in some cases I'd say it's already back in it's own way.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159075648914116608
The real person here dropping bombs is Tulsi. 

This is the kind of bombing campaign that I approve of.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159075648914116608
> The real person here dropping bombs is Tulsi.
> 
> This is the kind of bombing campaign that I approve of.


See Tulsi is great and all but what we have here is a lack of Communication, see Americans cannot view the big picture. If she wants to be taken serious she needs to talk about fuck all stupid shit that has little to no real meaning to get the voters.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> See Tulsi is great and all but what we have here is a lack of Communication, see Americans cannot view the big picture. If she wants to be taken serious she needs to talk about fuck all stupid shit that has little to no real meaning to get the voters.


I appreciate the point you are making. There is no telling how long they will continue to allow her on the debate stage, especially after how she destroyed Copmala, but anyone watching those clips can not only hear her words but can hear the applause for them. America is desperate for the kind of politician Tulsi offers. She is a much bigger threat to the ruling elite than Bernie.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> I appreciate the point you are making. There is no telling how long they will continue to allow her on the debate stage, especially after how she destroyed Copmala, but anyone watching those clips can not only hear her words but can hear the applause for them. America is desperate for the kind of politician Tulsi offers. She is a much bigger threat to the ruling elite than Bernie.


Tulsi is the real deal and they hate her for it. 

Tulsi's an intelligent, thoughtful, caring woman with military service who values American values and it's people. She wants to end the wars and fix the issues plaguing the country.

She's in direct opposition to Establishment Dems, The "Justice" Dems, Republicans and the Elite. 

She cannot be allowed to win!

Problem with Bernie is he don't have half the strength of Tulsi, sorry but he doesn't and as cringe as this may sound, the right man for the job is a woman and that's Tulsi. Not some old guy who's trying to placate everyone who would be vulnerable to the Establishment and the Squad that's trying to become the new Establishment. 

The hate Tulsi gets, she's racist, she's given airtime with Tucker!, She's a russian bot! I'm really shocked more haven't jumped on it considering how popular russiagate is.


----------



## skypod

I was thinking of Tulsi's campaign today. IMO shes looking for vice presidential spot or secretary of state. She destroyed Kamala (who people were starting to slowly turn against just before) but has defended Biden and not gone after Sanders or Warren from what I know. She know she's not going to take this to the finish line and she doesn't want to slander anyone to hurt her political career. I think by January 2021 she'll have made a huge name for herself. I wouldn't mind Sanders/Warren (in that order only though) and Tulsi as SOS. 

Biden's still unfortunately polling well, but listening to him speak I can't even imagine him making it the four years without stepping down with some medical issue. How long are his team going to prop him up like a puppet when he can't perform in debates and clearly isn't as coherent as he once was.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/government/trump-blago-im-thinking-commuting-his-sentence



> *Trump on Blago: 'I'm thinking of commuting his sentence'*
> 
> The New York Times is reporting that President Donald Trump is “strongly considering” commuting the 14-year prison sentence of Rod R. Blagojevich, citing remarks he made on Air Force One as well as two people familiar with the president's plans.
> 
> Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor, was convicted of trying to trade President Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat for personal gain.
> 
> The Times reports that Trump described the incriminating phone call in which Blagojevich was taped discussing selling the seat as mostly a minor offense and something “many” politicians have done.
> 
> “I thought he was treated unbelievably unfairly; he was given close to 18 years in prison,” Trump said aboard Air Force One during his daylong swing through Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas, in the wake of two deadly shootings there over the weekend. “And a lot of people thought it was unfair, like a lot of other things — and it was the same gang, the Comey gang and all these sleazebags that did it. And his name is Rod Blagojevich. And I’m thinking about commuting his sentence.”
> 
> The Times reports the president made plans to commute the sentence this week, citing two people with knowledge of the talks. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, had suggested Blagojevich be pardoned, advising the president that it would appeal to Democrats, one of those people said. Other advisers told Trump that such a move would be politically unwise given the nature of Blagojevich’s conviction; instead, commuting the sentence was what had been settled on.
> 
> This isn't the first time Trump has eyed commuting Blagojevich's sentence. In May 2018, Trump suggested that he was considering it. A month later, official paperwork was filed requesting the commutation.
> 
> Trump has a personal connection to Blagojevich: Before he was imprisoned, Blagojevich appeared on “Celebrity Apprentice,” a spinoff Trump's former reality TV show.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!


----------



## Draykorinee

skypod said:


> I was thinking of Tulsi's campaign today. IMO shes looking for vice presidential spot or secretary of state. She destroyed Kamala (who people were starting to slowly turn against just before) but has defended Biden and not gone after Sanders or Warren from what I know. She know she's not going to take this to the finish line and she doesn't want to slander anyone to hurt her political career. I think by January 2021 she'll have made a huge name for herself. I wouldn't mind Sanders/Warren (in that order only though) and Tulsi as SOS.
> 
> Biden's still unfortunately polling well, but listening to him speak I can't even imagine him making it the four years without stepping down with some medical issue. How long are his team going to prop him up like a puppet when he can't perform in debates and clearly isn't as coherent as he once was.


I'm hoping she doesn't get a vp spot but one where she can influence more.


----------



## CamillePunk

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.chicagobusiness.com/government/trump-blago-im-thinking-commuting-his-sentence


This would be incredibly stupid. Whoever said it would "appeal to Democrats" should not be in a position to advise anyone. They would roast him alive for this. Also, surely there are much better options for a pardon than a corrupt politician.


----------



## deepelemblues

Fuck's the big deal with a governor selling a Senate seat

Seems rather prudish to care about a simple governor trying to get in on that game in an era of such general cynicism. The Russians or the military-industrial complex or the Jews or the reptile lizard aliens or the somebodies control all that action remember


----------



## TheLooseCanon

skypod said:


> I was thinking of Tulsi's campaign today. IMO shes looking for vice presidential spot or secretary of state. She destroyed Kamala (who people were starting to slowly turn against just before) but has defended Biden and not gone after Sanders or Warren from what I know. She know she's not going to take this to the finish line and she doesn't want to slander anyone to hurt her political career. I think by January 2021 she'll have made a huge name for herself. I wouldn't mind Sanders/Warren (in that order only though) and Tulsi as SOS.
> 
> Biden's still unfortunately polling well, but listening to him speak I can't even imagine him making it the four years without stepping down with some medical issue. How long are his team going to prop him up like a puppet when he can't perform in debates and clearly isn't as coherent as he once was.


I think Tulsi would be great for Secretary of State under a Sanders/Nina Turner administration. I don't want Warren as VP if I had a choice.


----------



## Tater

TheLooseCanon said:


> I think Tulsi would be great for Secretary of State under a Sanders/Nina Turner administration. I don't want Warren as VP if I had a choice.


This would be my ideal choice as well. Sanders/Turner on the ticket with Tulsi as SOS, which is a much more powerful position than VP anyways.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159669723090624512
:lmao :lmao :lmao

This fucking guy. If Trump said this it'd be treated as definitive proof that he was a white supremacist and every network would give it full-throated coverage for an entire news cycle. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

Strange things are happ'nin to Joe

Straaaaa-aaaaaa-ange things

There's no doubt about it


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159602449998594051
Gotta court the TDS-sufferers, it's a huge part of the Democrat base. Seems a little cynical to take advantage of delusional people to me, but hey, that's politics.


----------



## deepelemblues

_Calls up the ACME Corporation: _

Yes, I would like to order another ACME U-SO-RACIST anvil please. This time I _will_ squash that damned orange roadrunner! No, I still haven't fully recovered from the one I tried to drop on him in 2016. Thank you for asking, it means a lot to me


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159669723090624512
> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> This fucking guy. If Trump said this it'd be treated as definitive proof that he was a white supremacist and every network would give it full-throated coverage for an entire news cycle. :lol


It's hard even for me to believe that so many view him as the "safe" choice to beat Trump.

That said, I don't think he will make it that far. He is too obviously in cognitive decline and I don't think he was ever inserted into the race to win in the first place.



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159602449998594051
> Gotta court the TDS-sufferers, it's a huge part of the Democrat base. Seems a little cynical to take advantage of delusional people to me, but hey, that's politics.


You're a MST3K fan, yes?

Broke my heart today to see TV's Frank on Twitter berating Bernie supporters as sexist for not supporting Warren. Said that sexism is the only reason some of them would not support Warren and blamed them for Hillary losing last time. 

I knew he was a Hillbot already because he's been on Jimmy's show, used to write jokes for him too, but still it's sad to see. Maybe Warren lost her chance at ever getting my support when she voted to increase Trump's military budget. But hey, that's just me. I must be sexist.

Not that the MSM will ever ask Warren about this the way they constantly smear Tulsi for simply meeting with Assad. Hey Liz, if Trump is a white supremacist, why did you vote to give his killing machine more money? If Warren was the progressive she claims to be, she would not be able to have a single interview anywhere without being asking this, like the way Tulsi is not allowed to have an interview (except from Tucker, apparently) without being asked about Assad.

It should tell you all you need to know about how fake Warren is. If she were elected, she would bend the knee to the establishment and the status quo would carry on.


----------



## deepelemblues

Tater said:


> You're a MST3K fan, yes?
> 
> Broke my heart today to see TV's Frank on Twitter berating Bernie supporters as sexist for not supporting Warren. Said that sexism is the only reason some of them would not support Warren and blamed them for Hillary losing last time.
> 
> I knew he was a Hillbot already because he's been on Jimmy's show, used to write jokes for him too, but still it's sad to see. Maybe Warren lost her chance at ever getting my support when she voted to increase Trump's military budget. But hey, that's just me. I must be sexist.
> 
> Not that the MSM will ever ask Warren about this the way they constantly smear Tulsi for simply meeting with Assad. *Hey Liz, if Trump is a white supremacist, why did you vote to give his killing machine more money? If Warren was the progressive she claims to be, she would not be able to have a single interview anywhere without being asking this, like the way Tulsi is not allowed to have an interview (except from Tucker, apparently) without being asked about Assad.*
> 
> It should tell you all you need to know about how fake Warren is. If she were elected, she would bend the knee to the establishment and the status quo would carry on.


TV's Frank deserved all those beatings from Dr. Forrester all along? :monkey

Why are you so mad that literally everything is political theater? Nothing is really important, it's all what can keep the most politically interested and motivated whipped into a frenzy nearly all the time. Because those are the people who donate. Who fill the mid-level ranks of local party organizations. Who do the nuts and bolts work of getting the vote out. They're also the people who can be classified by that now wonderfully-Orwellian word "activist," of whatever stripe

In this ultracompetitive environment hitting the brain's natural dope factories as much as possible is key 

None of these candidates want to destroy the establishment - whatever that is, membership of individuals and organizations is constantly shifting and the balance of power between members always in flux - they all want to bend it to their will to varying degrees

Who the hell wants to lose the vast power wielded by the managerial class? Few societies have been able to resist it, whether it takes the form of the priesthood, the nobility, or today the bureaucracy and the supermegaultrarich corporations, organizations, and individuals. It has always existed since complex civilization arose. It does have certain talents - mostly related to getting people to do what they're told. That more than makes up for, in nearly every politician's mind, the managers' myriad flaws and failings. Many of which the politician is unlikely to see as either anyway

The candidate closest and warmest in their heart to the idea of taking on the managerial class is... the incumbent :trump3 

Now it is time for a Tulsi rant

President Gabbard is not going to be any more anti-war than the current president. She's so wonderful and then if she's in office she's going to get the straight dope about how weak the Europeans outside of Poland are and how they expect and need us to keep making sure the Russians don't get any ideas okay? After all President Gabbard America and Europe are natural partners and now that your domestic politics are closer to ours, surely our glorious history of cooperation can continue as before. Thanks for the 70,000 soldiers in Germany so Germany doesn't 'need' to have a real army President Gabbard, really appreciate it. And the Chinese already have ideas and they're telling everybody all about those ideas with increasing frequency. Those ideas boil down to teach America and Japan and their little friends in East Asia a lesson when we're strong enough, and if that involves a war, then it involves a war. Nearly everybody in Africa is going to be yelling for American involvement of some kind, at least some American money and maybe some American guns hey? The only thing keeping Saudi Arabia and Iran from a nasty standoff with Egyptian, Turkish, and Israeli wildcards is lots of US military hardware and soldiers conveniently being right in the fucking middle of it

And so President Gabbard will start to give in. Compromise. Back down. :trump is the most anti-war president since, I don't know, Calvin Coolidge? and he has several characteristics that draw him away from being actually anti-war, and his policies have not been wildly anti-war at all. Sorry but Gabbard is the same way. Different characteristics cause it though. Her military experience makes her anti-war, but it also makes her susceptible to arguments that we absolutely do need to do *something* because *whoever* is doing this and that, or if we don't it will strategically mean this which is very bad, and Gabbard will be susceptible to those arguments because she's been there. If China's military buildup keeps going strong and the things they say about the US keep getting more and more caustic, a President Gabbard is not going to be able to maintain a 'nope anti-war means anti-war' stance on actual policy for very long 

:trump's patriotic exuberance leaves him with very little in the way of being meaningfully anti-war. He thinks wars are bad for business. He wants no new ones and thinks the ones he inherited were handled ineptly by the two previous administrations. That he can do better and actually move toward being done with them. He waged the war on ISIS with a very heavy hand. There was nothing anti-war about what Russia and the US and their allies did to various Sunni jihadi groups in Syria and Iraq once :trump took office. The president's policy has always reflected his goal of wanting to restore the image of the United States as a country you can do business with, differences aside, but will kick your ass around the block if you fuck with it. It's central to his image of himself and the image he has for the country

Tulsi would maintain the same general policies as :trump with regard to war. No new ones, some pulling back from others, vigorous prosecution of others, maintaining the global presence and involvement. The disappearance of the US military and US military activity from the world including blowing shit up and shooting people is not going to happen

The managerial class that a president needs to govern this misshapen Frankenstein's failure of a government is the class that wants wars to manage. It wants to manage everything, and if there is something really important that can be managed, like war, well, that's just class security right there. Tulsi can't destroy or remake the managerial class. Tulsi can't end the empire

:trump can't either. He's done a fairly good job of nibbling on the edges and struggled mightily to shift the Overton window, and maybe if he wins re-election he can do some more. He's certainly done more to strike at the managerial class than any president in forever. But he does it out of ego and resentment towards them for the way they treat him, and out of some personal, atavistic aversion to being controlled. That's not sustainable past the term of his administration. Maybe Gabbard would do some more nibbling and move the window more than :trump would from 2021 to 2025. And even more from 2025 to 2029, were she to win re-election. But I think the managerial class will make a comeback in the next administration, whether it starts in a year and a half from now, or 5 and a half. What that will mean for the managerial class and for the rest of us is a big :draper2 

So in 2028 or 2032 or maybe even in 2024 people can go crazy for the next anti-war clean it all up candidate. The one who really means it this time and we won't get fooled again


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> TV's Frank deserved all those beatings from Dr. Forrester all along? :monkey


It would appear so.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> You're a MST3K fan, yes?
> 
> Broke my heart today to see TV's Frank on Twitter berating Bernie supporters as sexist for not supporting Warren. Said that sexism is the only reason some of them would not support Warren and blamed them for Hillary losing last time.
> 
> I knew he was a Hillbot already because he's been on Jimmy's show, used to write jokes for him too, but still it's sad to see. Maybe Warren lost her chance at ever getting my support when she voted to increase Trump's military budget. But hey, that's just me. I must be sexist.
> 
> Not that the MSM will ever ask Warren about this the way they constantly smear Tulsi for simply meeting with Assad. Hey Liz, if Trump is a white supremacist, why did you vote to give his killing machine more money? If Warren was the progressive she claims to be, she would not be able to have a single interview anywhere without being asking this, like the way Tulsi is not allowed to have an interview (except from Tucker, apparently) without being asked about Assad.
> 
> It should tell you all you need to know about how fake Warren is. If she were elected, she would bend the knee to the establishment and the status quo would carry on.


Jee someone who worked for Jimmy Swaggert Kimbel is a Hillbot. How shocking. Got to keep the aristocracy going. How else are celebs going to go to White House dinners and get selfies with the President to show how important they are?


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

Miss Sally said:


> Tulsi is the real deal and they hate her for it.
> 
> Tulsi's an intelligent, thoughtful, caring woman with military service who values American values and it's people. She wants to end the wars and fix the issues plaguing the country.
> 
> She's in direct opposition to Establishment Dems, The "Justice" Dems, Republicans and the Elite.
> 
> She cannot be allowed to win!
> 
> Problem with Bernie is he don't have half the strength of Tulsi, sorry but he doesn't and as cringe as this may sound, the right man for the job is a woman and that's Tulsi. Not some old guy who's trying to placate everyone who would be vulnerable to the Establishment and the Squad that's trying to become the new Establishment.
> 
> The hate Tulsi gets, she's racist, she's given airtime with Tucker!, She's a russian bot! I'm really shocked more haven't jumped on it considering how popular russiagate is.


Tulsi isn't winning, and she isn't going to be VP, or S.o.S.

Not because I don't like her or anything, because I have always come away from her impressed.. i don't agree with 100% of her policies, but she has some that I enjoy.

Tulsi has a lot of charisma, and has a lot more Republican votes than people give credit for.

Unfortunately, her lack of melanin makes her hard to be critical of Kamala, and her being buddy buddy with "Durr Watt Supremasist" Tucker Carlson has made her a target of the MSM.

MSNBC does not like her, Maher has her on, and its about Russia, and impeachment. I haven't seen a lot of interaction with her and CNN though

it's unfrotunate but, the truth is, if she is going to have a fighting chance, then those networks are going to have to give her time, and get Dem voters to like her.

Sanders doesn't have the grapefruits IMO to piss off CNN or MSNBC, and bring Tulsi on, and Warren, and Harris aren't doing it. Biden might, as it may help him get over the hump, and he gives me the impression He DGAF about the MSM, but I am enjoying Tulsi while I can, hopefully whoever wins will see her value too.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159602449998594051
> Gotta court the TDS-sufferers, it's a huge part of the Democrat base. Seems a little cynical to take advantage of delusional people to me, but hey, that's politics.


I have to just stare at my screen when I read this. This is coming from someone who fakes being a minority or at least having NA ancestry, has some pretty insensitive nicknacks and is completely sketchy. :laugh:

I don't think these people are self aware at all.


----------



## MrMister

I just read that Joe Biden said something like "Poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids"


----------



## virus21

MrMister said:


> I just read that Joe Biden said something like "Poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids"


He did.


----------



## skypod

DMD Mofomagic said:


> Sanders doesn't have the grapefruits IMO to piss off CNN or MSNBC, and bring Tulsi on, and Warren, and Harris aren't doing it. Biden might, as it may help him get over the hump, and he gives me the impression He DGAF about the MSM, but I am enjoying Tulsi while I can, hopefully whoever wins will see her value too.




Sanders has already called out CNN and MSNBC for being biased and advertising for big pharma during the debates. He could tell every host to lick his balls and it wouldn't lose him any votes he doesn't already have. The fake left or "centres" that watch these networks aren't voting Sanders unless they have to (vs. Trump) and even then you'll hear lots of complaining that the presidential race is about two white men.


----------



## Draykorinee

Calling trump a white supremacist is divisive and utterly wrong.


----------



## skypod

Trump's not organised or even passionate enough to be a white supremacist. I imagine he has a dislike to most black people, people from other countries, doesn't think darker skinned people are to the same level whites are. He's a simple racist, not an organised white supremacist (anyone who has spent any amount of time with racist people in their lives sees this) . Saying so just gives the Right ammunition to play semantics about it. 

It's a bit like saying "this man was wearing a red shirt and he came up and punched me and spat on me and called me piece of fucking shit". And someone refutes you by saying "no that's false" and when later pressed, they say its because the man was wearing a blue shirt and didn't drop the F bomb. Why play these games. Trumps a cancerous cunt. He doesn't have secret KKK gatherings in the oval office.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

skypod said:


> Sanders has already called out CNN and MSNBC for being biased and advertising for big pharma during the debates. He could tell every host to lick his balls and it wouldn't lose him any votes he doesn't already have. The fake left or "centres" that watch these networks aren't voting Sanders unless they have to (vs. Trump) and even then you'll hear lots of complaining that the presidential race is about two white men.


Yeah, this is what I heard about him 4 years ago.

I will believe it when i see it.

I don't care for the Sanders gibberish he spouts when he is "calling out" CNN or MSNBC, he should be going after Warren, that is who is going to take his votes away.

Harris went after Biden, because that is her primary competition... we shall see if Bernie has the gonads to step up to the person who is stealing his votes (which Warren is, I don't know why you would say she isn't) then it will be a surprise.

I mean Clinton was blatantly cheating in front of him, and he bent the knee for her, so hopefully he learned his lesson


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1160003097508270080
Yeah, the guy you regularly smear as a white supremacist and don't even refer to by his proper title is gonna totally do you that solid, Ilhan. :lol Remarkable that someone so entitled and ungrateful has supporters/defenders. Says a lot about how cucked the west is.

Let's get a proper investigation of her and her family's very likely immigration fraud, and if able, send her back.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159868960394895361
What a tough guy Joe Biden is. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159851360327806976
Of course this was written by a (less attractive than Ivanka Trump) white woman. :lmao White feminists are so damn catty.


----------



## Reaper

So basically Ilhan Omar does exactly what Trump did when he wanted to pardon a white terrorist war criminal and she's a bad guy :kobelol

Not surprised that this thread has gotten even worse.


----------



## Draykorinee

I get all my news from the Jeruslem Post...

So the spin is in over drive, this is someone that Amnesty international also wants free, but that doesn't stop right wing nutjobs using everything they can to smear here. The Muslim Brotherhood are not aterrorist organisation as defined by the US, only a handful of shithole countries like UAE, SA and Egypt. She's not even been convicted of any terrorist activity.

But do not let facts get in the way.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159902078103445507
:monkey

Michael Brown's death was a clear-cut justified shooting. He violently robbed a convenience store, charged at an officer and tried to take his gun. The physical evidence and witness testimonies support this (including the witnesses who initially lied to support the BLM narrative and then later recanted and admitted that Brown charged Wilson) This is absolutely shameful from Elizabeth Warren and damages the movement against police brutality.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1160590484219355141
Jesus Christ politicians are a different species. "We must imitate the humans so that they will accept us as their overlords..."


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159902078103445507
> :monkey
> 
> Michael Brown's death was a clear-cut justified shooting. He violently robbed a convenience store, charged at an officer and tried to take his gun. The physical evidence and witness testimonies support this (including the witnesses who initially lied to support the BLM narrative and then later recanted and admitted that Brown charged Wilson) This is absolutely shameful from Elizabeth Warren and damages the movement against police brutality.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1160590484219355141
> Jesus Christ politicians are a different species. "We must imitate the humans so that they will accept us as their overlords..."


We need to invent a new term for people smart enough to not support the obvious neolib Dems but are gullible enough to fall for the fraud that is Elizabeth Warren.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CamillePunk said:


> Jesus Christ politicians are a different species. "We must imitate the humans so that they will accept us as their overlords..."


I'm still not convinced Beto O Rourke isn't an android of some sort.


----------



## Draykorinee

Beto is the most verbally awkward human being since Paul Joseph Watson.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> We need to invent a new term for people smart enough to not support the obvious neolib Dems but are gullible enough to fall for the fraud that is Elizabeth Warren.


We do: Assholes


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> So basically Ilhan Omar does exactly what Trump did when he wanted to pardon a white terrorist war criminal and she's a bad guy :kobelol
> 
> Not surprised that this thread has gotten even worse.


Wasn't Trump called out for that? So why is Omar an exception?



Draykorinee said:


> I get all my news from the Jeruslem Post...
> 
> So the spin is in over drive, this is someone that Amnesty international also wants free, but that doesn't stop right wing nutjobs using everything they can to smear here. The Muslim Brotherhood are not aterrorist organisation as defined by the US, only a handful of shithole countries like UAE, SA and Egypt. She's not even been convicted of any terrorist activity.
> 
> But do not let facts get in the way.


The Muslim Brotherhood caused all kinds of problems in Egypt to the point that the Military had to protect the citizens from them. Pretty sure they were burning down churches and there are first hand accounts of the Brotherhood's actions. Also don't they have ties to terrorist groups financially? Maybe that's C.A.I.R.

I love Omar, she's a bigot who say's the most darndest things and people constantly bend over for her. I love this Country where people jump through hoops to justify the words and actions of their chosen racists and bigots. Only in murica! :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically Ilhan Omar does exactly what Trump did when he wanted to pardon a white terrorist war criminal and she's a bad guy <img src="http://i.imgur.com/qombxRn.gif" border="0" alt="" title="kobelol" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Not surprised that this thread has gotten even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Trump called out for that? So why is Omar an exception?
> 
> 
> 
> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get all my news from the Jeruslem Post...
> 
> So the spin is in over drive, this is someone that Amnesty international also wants free, but that doesn't stop right wing nutjobs using everything they can to smear here. The Muslim Brotherhood are not aterrorist organisation as defined by the US, only a handful of shithole countries like UAE, SA and Egypt. She's not even been convicted of any terrorist activity.
> 
> But do not let facts get in the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Muslim Brotherhood caused all kinds of problems in Egypt to the point that the Military had to protect the citizens from them. Pretty sure they were burning down churches and there are first hand accounts of the Brotherhood's actions. Also don't they have ties to terrorist groups financially? Maybe that's C.A.I.R.
> 
> I love Omar, she's a bigot who say's the most darndest things and people constantly bend over for her. I love this Country where people jump through hoops to justify the words and actions of their chosen racists and bigots. Only in murica! <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/WrestlingForum_2014RED/smilies/tango_face_smile_big.png" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

I'm no Muslim brotherhood supporter by any stretch. But we all know the reason they're designated terrorist in Egypt and its to stop them politically. 

There is so no evidence to suggest this person has ever been convicted of a terrorist incident, so smearing ilhan with she's asking for a terrorist to be free is stupid.

Ilhan is an interesting person, I'm not sure I buy a lot of the smears but she's not capable of saying stuff that doesn't come across badly.


----------



## PresidentGasman

im telling you we need a President like this










basically not an SJW and someone who will implement proper economic reform to help the poor without fucking up the economy.


----------



## deepelemblues

Jumpin Joe Biden says the US should take in 2 million legal immigrants this year with the implication that that should be the minimum number taken in every year

Illegal immigrants per year runs at about 75% of the legal immigrants per year so what he's really saying is 3.5 million a year. MINIMUM

That's it. There isn't a single Democratic candidate who isn't open borders all the way. The economy is gonna have to go Great Depression But Worse and do it FAST for the president to lose with these positions being staked out by the Democrats


----------



## Draykorinee

Except no democrat wants open borders no matter how many times its repeated.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> I'm no Muslim brotherhood supporter by any stretch. But we all know the reason they're designated terrorist in Egypt and its to stop them politically.
> 
> There is so no evidence to suggest this person has ever been convicted of a terrorist incident, so smearing ilhan with she's asking for a terrorist to be free is stupid.
> 
> Ilhan is an interesting person, I'm not sure I buy a lot of the smears* but she's not capable of saying stuff that doesn't come across badly.*


Can't say I blame the Egyptian Government for keeping the Brotherhood in check since they're not really secular in the least. I suppose one could look up what they've done and what they stand for. 

There's probably a reason for that, kind of like when someone says something and it always has overtones, surely there's_ no reason_ for this to happen. That's okay, no matter what she says people will defend her. :x


----------



## Reaper

Dray knows that I don't like Omar or The Brotherhood. They are extremist sympethizing organizations and a lot of muslim organizations have indeed been fronts for extremism by individuals within those organizations. Brotherhood has been no different. 

The problem is the hysteria from the right wingers over Omar when their own president consistently apologizes for extremists and terrorists while stoking the flames of extremism himself. 

I know I'm going to get a dozen denials for this but 3 years into his regime and his rhetoric is consistent with extremist thinking. Right wingers toot the horns their Republican masters tell them to toot. It's no different from the Democrats who toot the establishment line.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Except no democrat wants open borders no matter how many times its repeated.


Yeah, they just want there to be no real punishment for illegally entering the country and then staying indefinitely. They also want to pay for their healthcare and education.

Totally not open borders though!


----------



## Tater

PresidentGasman said:


> im telling you we need a President like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basically not an SJW and someone who will implement proper economic reform to help the poor without fucking up the economy.


Take that 2nd line, switch out the left and right with libertarian and authoritarian and crank the dial all the way over to the libertarian side. Keep government 100% out of social issues. Max civil liberties. Everyone gets to do whatever they want as long as they are not personally harming someone else and the government stays out of our social lives. No more SJW laws *and* no more socially conservative laws. There should only be one social law: the government stays the fuck out of social issues and no one gets to use the government to force their ideology on anyone else. End of.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161019281888485377
Dick Swett :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Dray knows that I don't like Omar or The Brotherhood. They are extremist sympethizing organizations and a lot of muslim organizations have indeed been fronts for extremism by individuals within those organizations. Brotherhood has been no different.
> 
> The problem is the hysteria from the right wingers over Omar when their own president consistently apologizes for extremists and terrorists while stoking the flames of extremism himself.
> 
> I know I'm going to get a dozen denials for this but 3 years into his regime and his rhetoric is consistent with extremist thinking. Right wingers toot the horns their Republican masters tell them to toot. It's no different from the Democrats who toot the establishment line.


Yeah some of the stuff she says is meh, not bad. Then sometimes she says stuff that's like yikes!

The problem is when people get on Trump but refuse to get on people like Omar or Louis Farrakhan, Sarsour, the women that run the women's march etc. Seems to be this double standard, if things are to be fixed we cannot have a double standard on anything. Agree with you tho!




Tater said:


> Take that 2nd line, switch out the left and right with libertarian and authoritarian and crank the dial all the way over to the libertarian side. Keep government 100% out of social issues. Max civil liberties. Everyone gets to do whatever they want as long as they are not personally harming someone else and the government stays out of our social lives. No more SJW laws *and* no more socially conservative laws. There should only be one social law: the government stays the fuck out of social issues and no one gets to use the government to force their ideology on anyone else. End of.


Just to be sure, kiddy diddling and molesting animals would still be illegal right? Because both of those groups cannot give consent.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> Just to be sure, kiddy diddling and molesting animals would still be illegal right? Because both of those groups cannot give consent.


I kinda thought consenting adults would be assumed. Also didn't think I needed to explain why animal abuse should be illegal.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161019281888485377
> Dick Swett :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


Harry Balls should be next.


----------



## ribalde

Tater said:


> Take that 2nd line, switch out the left and right with libertarian and authoritarian and crank the dial all the way over to the libertarian side. Keep government 100% out of social issues. Max civil liberties. Everyone gets to do whatever they want as long as they are not personally harming someone else and the government stays out of our social lives. No more SJW laws *and* no more socially conservative laws. There should only be one social law: the government stays the fuck out of social issues and no one gets to use the government to force their ideology on anyone else. End of.


A big problem with politics is that people don't know what words actually mean.
Conservative and liberal are vague terms. Republican and Democrat don't mean shit. People should really do their own research, they'd be surprised on what they would learn.


----------



## CamillePunk

Thinking about this further I'm pretty sure the whole point of John Delaney is to make Elizabeth Warren look like "basically the same as Bernie" by contrast so that she'll win instead of Bernie, get in, and change absolutely nothing fundamentally. 

There's no way he thinks he can win. There's no way all the corporate media pundits "taking him seriously" think he can win. He got SO MUCH time at that last debate despite being irrelevant in the polls. The whole thing smells fishy. I don't buy that they think John Delaney is going to convince anyone of neoliberalism.


----------



## Tater

ribalde said:


> A big problem with politics is that people don't know what words actually mean.
> Conservative and liberal are vague terms. Republican and Democrat don't mean shit. People should really do their own research, they'd be surprised on what they would learn.


Correct. Social issues have nothing to do with left and right. They are related to libertarian and authoritarian because libertarians believe in civil liberties and authoritarians want to force everyone else to live by their own personal beliefs.



CamillePunk said:


> Thinking about this further I'm pretty sure the whole point of John Delaney is to make Elizabeth Warren look like "basically the same as Bernie" by contrast so that she'll win instead of Bernie, get in, and change absolutely nothing fundamentally.
> 
> There's no way he thinks he can win. There's no way all the corporate media pundits "taking him seriously" think he can win. He got SO MUCH time at that last debate despite being irrelevant in the polls. The whole thing smells fishy. I don't buy that they think John Delaney is going to convince anyone of neoliberalism.


Good observation. The MSM already treats Warren with kid gloves. They'd rather have Harris but they will push Warren if it comes down to it because they know she will bend the knee.


----------



## 7x0v

*U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*

https://www.c-span.org/video/?463426-1/us-citizenship-immigration-services-acting-director-briefs-reporters-immigration-rule-change

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-benefits/new-trump-rule-targets-poor-and-could-cut-legal-immigration-in-half-advocates-say-idUSKCN1V219N

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/12/748328652/trump-administration-rule-would-penalize-immigrants-for-using-benefits

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled a sweeping rule on Monday that some experts say could cut legal immigration in half by denying visas and permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of people for being too poor. 

The long-anticipated rule, pushed by Trump’s leading aide on immigration, Stephen Miller, takes effect Oct. 15. It would reject applicants for temporary or permanent visas if they fail to meet high enough income standards or if they receive public assistance such as welfare, food stamps, public housing or Medicaid.


----------



## PresidentGasman

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*

this is a guy that pretends to suck up to legal immigrants as well, fucking scumbag im telling you.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, they just want there to be no real punishment for illegally entering the country and then staying indefinitely. They also want to pay for their healthcare and education.
> 
> Totally not open borders though!


I know you're red pilled now but you don't have to be that obvious about your falsehoods and bipartisanship. 

Open borders as we all know means no border security, you can spin all you like, but lying and smearing is lazy.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*

In the UK we don't allow permanent residence to immigrants from outside the EU who don't meet a threshold of 20k a year.

Someone with better knowledge of the US system will have to explain why this could be a negative because it seems to come accross this way in the some of the circles I'm in.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Draykorinee said:


> In the UK we don't allow permanent residence to immigrants from outside the EU who don't meet a threshold of 20k a year.
> 
> Someone with better knowledge of the US system will have to explain why this could be a negative because it seems to come accross this way in the some of the circles I'm in.


Well America is supposed to be the land of opportunity where people pull themselves up by their bootstraps, poor people used to come here, work hard, saved and opened up small businesses. In fact, in inner cities a very large portion of small businesses are owned by immigrants. This is just another one of his anti- brown person policies, he only wants rich white people from Norway.

Whenever Trumpsters say he's only against illegal immigration point to this policy.


----------



## JasonLives

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Well America is supposed to be the land of opportunity where people pull themselves up by their bootstraps, poor people used to come here, work hard, saved and opened up small businesses. In fact, in inner cities a very large portion of small businesses are owned by immigrants. This is just another one of his anti- brown person policies, he only wants rich white people from Norway.
> 
> Whenever Trumpsters say he's only against illegal immigration point to this policy.


Unless you have open borders that whole "give me your poor" falls flat right away. Its the year 2019 now. 
Considering the amount of illegal immigrants the US have im suprised they dont have even harsher rules. Like a poster said before, the "demands" is pretty common looking at the european countries.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



JasonLives said:


> Unless you have open borders that whole "give me your poor" falls flat right away. Its the year 2019 now.
> Considering the amount of illegal immigrants the US have im suprised they dont have even harsher rules. Like a poster said before, the "demands" is pretty common looking at the european countries.


What does the amount of illegal immigration have to do with the standards for legal immigration? If anything wouldn't you want to make the standards _less_ harsh to encourage people to "come here the right way"? 

From what Draykorinee said it sounds like those standards in Europe only apply to people outside the EU, if that's the case that still potentially allows 508M people, some of which will come from poorer countries. It's not about keeping out poor people who are going to drain your country's resources, it's about keeping out people who don't have the same culture unless they can make up for it with wealth.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Draykorinee said:


> In the UK we don't allow permanent residence to immigrants from outside the EU who don't meet a threshold of 20k a year.
> 
> Someone with better knowledge of the US system will have to explain why this could be a negative because it seems to come accross this way in the some of the circles I'm in.


Then I have to say that this is one thing that europeans don't have right either. 

People can have normal, good, happy, prosperous lives and then go through hardship where in a shithole like America you are literally one PoS boss away from having your entire life ruined temporarily or long-term. I mean, it doesn't even have to be a boss. It can just be someone losing their job in a massive lay offs these fucking billionnaires do regularly. There have already been tons of layoffs in America this year and who knows how many of those people are currently on government assistance. 

First you have a shithole where majority of employers can fire you without due process--- in most states you are allowed to fire without even giving a reason to allow massive corporations the ability to have layoffs simply for the sake of their bottom lines (at least most european countries got that right where it's harder to fire someone), then you have a shithole where the government can use that to deny you your citizenship even after you've spent years working towards it. 

No matter how anyone spins it, a shithole doing shithole things doesn't really surprise me anymore.


----------



## TheDraw

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Well America is supposed to be the land of opportunity where people pull themselves up by their bootstraps, poor people used to come here, work hard, saved and opened up small businesses. In fact, in inner cities a very large portion of small businesses are owned by immigrants. This is just another one of his anti- brown person policies, he only wants rich white people from Norway.
> 
> Whenever Trumpsters say he's only against illegal immigration point to this policy.


Times changed. America needs to start getting serious about things. 

I'm sorry, this is not the same fairytale world it was 30-40 years ago. Democrats need to wake up to that. Time to make moves based on the future not based on how things "used" to be.

I for one am happy that we have a president that is looking out his own poeple as he should. Maybe you should try supporting a president who's actually looking out for you and has your best interest in mind. Just a suggestion.


----------



## RiverFenix

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*

Would be very interested to see how this would break down demographically. Which countries immigrants would be impacted more - ie shithole countries vs Nordic and European countries if you catch my drift. 

How many Immigrant success stories begin with "I arrives with nothing in my pocket, but was willing to work hard..."?

Miller is legit evil, and Trump is stupid.


----------



## Nothing Finer

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Well America is supposed to be the land of opportunity where people pull themselves up by their bootstraps, poor people used to come here, work hard, saved and opened up small businesses. In fact, in inner cities a very large portion of small businesses are owned by immigrants. This is just another one of his anti- brown person policies, he only wants rich white people from Norway.
> 
> Whenever Trumpsters say he's only against illegal immigration point to this policy.


If they're on public assistance they're not really pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, rather they're being held up by the government. 

Most countries prefer immigrants to be wealthy and well educated. They don't want people who will be a burden, and many have a preference for immigrants from rich countries with have excellent education systems. 

Norway in particular is a great example of a country most other countries would be delighted to have immigrants from. Norway is a fantastic country, very safe, excellent social welfare system, very well educated people etc., there's no good reason to turn them away. They're not going to go to a foreign country to cause trouble, take advantage of the public services etc., because the US justice system is based around fucking people's lives up (Norway rehabilitates you) and the public services, welfare etc. in Norway are among the best in the world. The only reason to immigrate from Norway to the US is to make money - generating tax revenue for the US - or because you love the US.

Wanting people from Norway isn't some uniquely Trumpian thing. There are over thirty countries to which Norwegians can freely immigrate to, no questions asked, so long as they have the means to support themselves (i.e. a job or savings).

Trump is a terrible, terrible President, but there doesn't seem to be anything unreasonable about preferring wealthy immigrants.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> I kinda thought consenting adults would be assumed. Also didn't think I needed to explain why animal abuse should be illegal.


I walked into something like this on another forum before so now I always double check. I never had any doubt on what you said, it was more for my own piece of mind. :smile2:



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, they just want there to be no real punishment for illegally entering the country and then staying indefinitely. They also want to pay for their healthcare and education.
> 
> Totally not open borders though!


Reminds me of when someone Religious argued that the Church doesn't support pedo Priests and I'm like, yeah but they hide the fact they have pedos, move them from parish to parish, pay hush money and use their power to interfere with the law. *But they're totally not in support of it despite never solving the issue and making it grow.* Mkay.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> I know you're red pilled now but you don't have to be that obvious about your falsehoods and bipartisanship.
> 
> Open borders as we all know means no border security, you can spin all you like, but lying and smearing is lazy.


There are two facets to border security. Keeping trespassers out and kicking trespassers out. If you aren't doing both, you aren't securing the border.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Nothing Finer said:


> If they're on public assistance they're not really pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, rather they're being held up by the government.
> 
> Most countries prefer immigrants to be wealthy and well educated. They don't want people who will be a burden, and many have a preference for immigrants from rich countries with have excellent education systems.
> 
> Norway in particular is a great example of a country most other countries would be delighted to have immigrants from. Norway is a fantastic country, very safe, excellent social welfare system, very well educated people etc., there's no good reason to turn them away. They're not going to go to a foreign country to cause trouble, take advantage of the public services etc., because the US justice system is based around fucking people's lives up (Norway rehabilitates you) and the public services, welfare etc. in Norway are among the best in the world. The only reason to immigrate from Norway to the US is to make money - generating tax revenue for the US - or because you love the US.
> 
> Wanting people from Norway isn't some uniquely Trumpian thing. There are over thirty countries to which Norwegians can freely immigrate to, no questions asked, so long as they have the means to support themselves (i.e. a job or savings).
> 
> Trump is a terrible, terrible President, but there doesn't seem to be anything unreasonable about preferring wealthy immigrants.


Except it going against everything America stands for. It's time to take that poem off the Statue of Liberty, Americans have lost all their values.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Well America is supposed to be the land of opportunity where people pull themselves up by their bootstraps, poor people used to come here, work hard, saved and opened up small businesses. In fact, in inner cities a very large portion of small businesses are owned by immigrants. This is just another one of his anti- brown person policies, he only wants rich white people from Norway.
> 
> Whenever Trumpsters say he's only against illegal immigration point to this policy.


The policy clearly states that this will target those on public assistance, not the business owners you are referring to.

You cannot reasonably expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for every single person that immigrates to the country. After a given period of time you need to show that you are self reliant.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*

Considering all the wonderful "utopias" the rest of the 1st world have and the US is told to be more like them.... those same people saying that are now screaming when the US actually marches closer to one of those countries' policies. Anyone ever look at immigrating to Canada for instance? Not the easiest path.


----------



## NapperX

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*

Considering what he said about "S***hole countries" means he is against immigrants from countries he doesn't like. It's become strange how the U.S bombs countries, takes over resources of other countries and demands that other countries take in the displaced while they figure out what is going on there even though they have been there for years.


----------



## Nothing Finer

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Except it going against everything America stands for. It's time to take that poem off the Statue of Liberty, Americans have lost all their values.


You have a very romantic view of what America stands for. 

That statue was never intended as a welcoming sign for immigrants. The US needed immigrants to exploit the land, increase the US's wealth and power. The immigrants happened to benefit from coming in as well, which is why some people romanticise immigration with that poem, but the reality is that the US never took them in out of some act of generosity or selflessness. It was pragmatism. Maybe they should take the poem off the statue, it's misleading.

What the US stands for, what the US has always stood for, first, foremost and to the exclusion of almost all else, is doing what's best for the US and its citizens. The same is true of every other country on the planet (although some of them care a lot less about the citizens).


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> There are two facets to border security. Keeping trespassers out and kicking trespassers out. If you aren't doing both, you aren't securing the border.


I don't know any democrat running on not kicking out illegal immigrants or dealing with illegal immigrants, they just don't want to criminalise them. Funnily its a far more libertarian position to take but fake libertarians will always push for harder punishments of illegal immigrants for some reason.

I really wish people wouldn't be so openly disingenuous and making me defend Democrats.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> The policy clearly states that this will target those on public assistance, not the business owners you are referring to.
> 
> You cannot reasonably expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for every single person that immigrates to the country. After a given period of time you need to show that you are self reliant.


Did you even read the post? They're going to deny visas to people who aren't here yet for being too poor in addition to denying citizenship to people who are already here as legal, permanent residents who are on public assistance.


----------



## deepelemblues

Fredo Cuomo :lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*

Great

Give me a million educated middle class or higher immigrants a year who can fill the tax coffers instead of empty them

That way the deficit will only be 800 billion dollars a year instead of 1 trillion! :cudi


----------



## birthday_massacre

*And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

https://www.actionnetwork.org/petitions/censor-the-internet/

Breaking: leaked documents show that the Trump administration is drafting an executive order that, if upheld by the courts, could essentially end free speech on the Internet. The draft order would put the FTC and the FCC, headed by its notoriously corrupt chairman Ajit Pai, in charge of monitoring and policing online speech on social media platforms, online forums, and more.

It would give these bureaucratic government agencies unprecedented control over how Internet platforms moderate speech by allowing them to revoke the essential protections Congress laid out in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). CDA 230 is the basic law that makes it possible for online platforms to let users post our own content, and to make basic decisions about what types of content they as private entities want to host. Every meme, every social media post, every blog and user-created video on the Internet has been made possible by this crucial free speech protection.

In practice, this executive order would mean that whichever political party is in power could dictate what speech is allowed on the Internet. If the government doesn’t like the way a private company is moderating content, they can shut their entire website down. The administration claims it’s trying to stop private companies from silencing speech—but this plan would create terrifying new censorship powers for the government to do just that. And the White House isn’t alone in promoting this misguided idea, some top Democrats have also called for weakening CDA 230.

The draft order has already been resoundingly condemned by First Amendment and free speech experts from across the political spectrum. Regardless of your politics, regardless of how you feel about the president, this is a terrible idea that will have the exact opposite impact of its stated purpose of protecting free speech. Sign the petition to tell the White House: “Don’t break the Internet with an executive order that makes the FCC and FTC the speech police. Uphold the First Amendment and leave the free and open web alone.”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media-executive-order-fcc-ftc/index.html


White House proposal would have FCC and FTC police alleged social media censorship

Washington (CNN Business)A draft executive order from the White House could put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of shaping how Facebook (FB), Twitter (TWTR) and other large tech companies curate what appears on their websites, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

The draft order, a summary of which was obtained by CNN, calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies. Politico first reported the existence of the draft.
If put into effect, the order would reflect a significant escalation by President Trump in his frequent attacks against social media companies over an alleged but unproven systemic bias against conservatives by technology platforms. And it could lead to a significant reinterpretation of a law that, its authors have insisted, was meant to give tech companies broad freedom to handle content as they see fit.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment on the draft order, but referred CNN to Trump's remarks at a recent meeting with right-wing social media activists. During the meeting, Trump vowed to "explore all regulatory and legislative solutions to protect free speech."
According to the summary seen by CNN, the draft executive order currently carries the title "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship." It claims that the White House has received more than 15,000 anecdotal complaints of social media platforms censoring American political discourse, the summary indicates. The Trump administration, in the draft order, will offer to share the complaints it's received with the FTC.
In May, the White House launched a website inviting consumers to report complaints of alleged partisan bias by social media companies.
The FTC will also be asked to open a public complaint docket, according to the summary, and to work with the FCC to develop a report investigating how tech companies curate their platforms and whether they do so in neutral ways. Companies whose monthly user base accounts for one-eighth of the U.S. population or more could find themselves facing scrutiny, the summary said, including but not limited to Facebook, Google, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest and Snapchat.
The Trump administration's proposal seeks to significantly narrow the protections afforded to companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the current law, internet companies are not liable for most of the content that their users or other third parties post on their platforms. Tech platforms also qualify for broad legal immunity when they take down objectionable content, at least when they are acting "in good faith."
From the start, the legislation has been interpreted to give tech companies the benefit of the doubt.
Trump invites right-wing extremists to White House 'social media summit'
Trump invites right-wing extremists to White House 'social media summit'
"The law that I wrote, Section 230, allows platforms to get this kind of slime and hate off the platform," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an interview with CNN on Friday, referring to hate speech that has appeared on forums such as 8chan. 8chan made headlines recently when a racist manifesto believed to have been written by the El Paso, Texas shooting suspect was published on the site.
By comparison, according to the summary, the White House draft order asks the FCC to restrict the government's view of the good-faith provision. Under the draft proposal, the FCC will be asked to find that social media sites do not qualify for the good-faith immunity if they remove or suppress content without notifying the user who posted the material, or if the decision is proven to be evidence of anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive practices.
Wyden, in the interview, called the proposal "horrible" and said neither the FTC nor the FCC are "exactly tripping over themselves... to carry it out."
"I bet you scores of conservatives are turning over in their grave right now listening to all of these big government approaches," Wyden said. "Their proposal today amounts to nothing short of a speech police."
In its current form, the draft order could lead to significant questions about the role the FCC and FTC can play when it comes to interpreting and enforcing Section 230, an area they have previously left largely unaddressed. The effort to draft the order has been ongoing for some time, the people said, and the proposal remains subject to change.
"It makes no sense to involve the FCC here," said Berin Szoka, president of the libertarian-leaning think tank TechFreedom. "They have rule-making authority, but no jurisdiction — they can't possibly want to be involved. It would be an impossible position."
The FTC and FCC both declined to comment.
The attempt to write the order comes as the White House on Friday prepared to meet with a number of tech companies to discuss their approaches to detecting and responding to violent extremism.
The midday meeting is expected to involve five-minute presentations from the companies on their respective policies and projects, according to copies of an invitation obtained by CNN. The presentations will be followed by a group discussion on technology and the companies' roles in fighting "signals of violence ... while respecting free speech."
Some people close to the tech industry expressed frustration that the White House seemed to be trying to have it both ways — excoriating tech companies for allegedly censoring conservative speech, a claim the platforms vigorously dispute, while castigating them for failing to block enough violent or hateful content.
"The internal inconsistency of this is outrageous," one of them said.
-- CNN Business' Donie O'Sullivan contributed reporting.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described what content internet companies may be liable for under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*

But Trumps not racst right lol


----------



## I AM Glacier

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

LAND OF THE FREE 

IF U DON LIKET YOUIN GET OUTTTTTT

USA USA USA USA USA USA
*dies in mass shooting*


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



deepelemblues said:


> Great
> 
> Give me a million educated middle class or higher immigrants a year who can fill the tax coffers instead of empty them
> 
> That way the deficit will only be 800 billion dollars a year instead of 1 trillion! :cudi


Why on Earth would middle class or higher, educated, white Europeans want to come to this third world shit hole? If you're already doing well economically what would you gain by coming here?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: U.S. to deny citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Did you even read the post? They're going to deny visas to people who aren't here yet for being too poor in addition to denying citizenship to people who are already here as legal, permanent residents who are on public assistance.


So then what does this have to do with them being brown? Poor is poor. 

We already have enough poor people here as it is. We don't need any more, especially if they are going to demand public assistance.

This sounds pretty cut and dry. I don't see what the controversy is.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

The executive order that is going to challenge censorship on the internet by hosting companies is actually going to censor the internet :lol

Making publishing decisions makes you a publisher, and not covered by Section 230. The strangling of free speech on the internet by Facebook, Google, Twitter etc. is about to be seriously challenged, and as you can see some people are very unhappy about it

Many of these same people are very very very concerned about corporate control over politics - except when it comes to Bay Area tech corporations run by egomaniac fascists, those corporations controlling politics is okay

Thread title is misleading and contradicted by the starting post. Orwellian as fuck gaslighting :heston


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> I don't know any democrat running on not kicking out illegal immigrants or dealing with illegal immigrants, they just don't want to criminalise them. Funnily its a far more libertarian position to take but fake libertarians will always push for harder punishments of illegal immigrants for some reason.
> 
> I really wish people wouldn't be so openly disingenuous and making me defend Democrats.


What do you think the punishment should be for sneaking into the country illegally?

Why offer them free healthcare?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Why on Earth would middle class or higher, educated, white Europeans want to come to this third world shit hole? If you're already doing well economically what would you gain by coming here?


Wow you're racist as fuck 

Thinking middle class or higher educated people only are white and exist in Europe

The fuck is wrong with you racist


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



deepelemblues said:


> Wow you're racist as fuck
> 
> Thinking middle class or higher educated people only are white and exist in Europe
> 
> The fuck is wrong with you racist


Donald Trump has specifically stated he wants more European immigration, Europe is made of mostly white people.

You're a clown.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

will there still be porn tho


Also I'd rather we just disband the FCC.


----------



## RiverFenix

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

It's an XO meaning it has no real staying power. Also it will be challenged in courts for years ie longer than Trump will be in power. This is all for show from Trump to pretend to his nut base that SM really has it out for them and he's going to do something about it. 

Zero chance this happens. This would get laughed out of the Supreme Court, should it ever get there 9-0.

It's all about stoking the conspiracy theorist MAGA loons that they really have the majority and being censored to making it seem that they're the minority. So when Trump loses in 2020 it will be because he was screwed and he can control his dead enders to doing dumb shit if he's tried for his crimes.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*

I don't think this is really that new, but could be mistaken. I am certainly not an expert on all the ins and outs of legal immigration.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*



DetroitRiverPhx said:


> It's an XO meaning it has no real staying power. Also it will be challenged in courts for years ie longer than Trump will be in power. This is all for show from Trump to pretend to his nut base that SM really has it out for them and he's going to do something about it.
> 
> Zero chance this happens.


An XO has as much staying power as a judge says it does in a political decision. See: DACA

When it gets challenged in court it will be at the Supreme Court within a year as political pressure will be applied to move it through the appellate courts quickly and for the SC to agree to hear the case. The same as with Obamacare or the travel ban or the wall funding national emergency declaration. Courts move as fast as those with influence want them to. Both sides will want a final decision asap


----------



## Crona

Draykorinee said:


> I don't know any democrat running on not kicking out illegal immigrants or dealing with illegal immigrants, they just don't want to criminalise them. Funnily its a far more libertarian position to take but fake libertarians will always push for harder punishments of illegal immigrants for some reason.
> 
> *I really wish people wouldn't be so openly disingenuous and making me defend Democrats.*


It's the only way some people can engage. I usually have to spend multiple posts going "no, I'm not a Liberal, no I'm not a Democrat, for fucks sakes I don't want to take your FREEDOMS..." The only way for some people to put forward their own views is through strawmans and red herrings, which would make you think that they would realize how untenable many of their viewpoints are, but I digress.


----------



## RiverFenix

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*



deepelemblues said:


> An XO has as much staying power as a judge says it does in a political decision. See: DACA
> 
> When it gets challenged in court it will be at the Supreme Court within a year as political pressure will be applied to move it through the appellate courts quickly and for the SC to agree to hear the case. The same as with Obamacare or the travel ban or the wall funding national emergency declaration. Courts move as fast as those with influence want them to. Both sides will want a final decision asap


When I say staying power I mean the next President can just reverse it with an XO as well. 

There isn't a court in the land that would uphold it. It's about the headlines Trump wants for fighting for his CT fringe nuts. And then a librul judge will block it and it will further the CT about the courts having a librul bias. He won't rush it to the Supreme Court because he knows it would be 9-0 to block it, he'll slow walk it to just make it look like he's fighting hard. 

It will be very interesting to see what GOP in congress will say about this. I mean why wouldn't McConnell pass something like this if he had votes in the Senate?


----------



## BRITLAND

Draykorinee said:


> In the UK we don't allow permanent residence to immigrants from outside the EU who don't meet a threshold of 20k a year.
> 
> Someone with better knowledge of the US system will have to explain why this could be a negative because it seems to come accross this way in the some of the circles I'm in.


I thought the threshold was £36k ($43k)? Or is that just a new Boris/Patal policy?


----------



## Draykorinee

BRITLAND said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the UK we don't allow permanent residence to immigrants from outside the EU who don't meet a threshold of 20k a year.
> 
> Someone with better knowledge of the US system will have to explain why this could be a negative because it seems to come accross this way in the some of the circles I'm in.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the threshold was £36k ($43k)? Or is that just a new Boris/Patal policy?
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're correct, I was thinking about nursing wages which was made exempt recently.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any democrat running on not kicking out illegal immigrants or dealing with illegal immigrants, they just don't want to criminalise them. Funnily its a far more libertarian position to take but fake libertarians will always push for harder punishments of illegal immigrants for some reason.
> 
> I really wish people wouldn't be so openly disingenuous and making me defend Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the punishment should be for sneaking into the country illegally?
> 
> Why offer them free healthcare?
Click to expand...

Deportation. There's also this idea of sneaking in illegally, the majority don't sneak in and they're generally working. Most tend to stay illegally. 

I don't agree with free healthcare unless it's a life threatening emergency or kids, we don't really have that even in the UK, although to be fair our system is abused because we have a poor way to monitor who uses it.


----------



## PresidentGasman

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

this puts President Hitler in a lose-lose situation because many of his supporters are "Hardcore Gamers" who frequently use the internet themselves, everytime he doesn't shit on his base the left is angry and everytime he actually does shit on his base and do stuff like this he loses supporters, i hope he loses the White House in 2020 and SOMEONE with Common Sense can take over, though to be fair not many Democrats seem to have it.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*



PresidentGasman said:


> this puts President Hitler in a lose-lose situation because many of his supporters are "Hardcore Gamers" who frequently use the internet themselves, everytime he doesn't shit on his base the left is angry and everytime he actually does shit on his base and do stuff like this he loses supporters, i hope he loses the White House in 2020 and SOMEONE with Common Sense can take over, though to be fair not many Democrats seem to have it.


Current politicians - Common Sense.

Pick one cause there is no way in hell we can get both.

I was wondering when the heavy handed shit would start with Trump. Surprisingly, it took a bit longer before he started making the plays I feared during his campaign.


----------



## PresidentGasman

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*



Kabraxal said:


> Current politicians - Common Sense.
> 
> Pick one cause there is no way in hell we can get both.


sadly you're right.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

He's the greatest censor of the internet, no one has the ability to censor the internet like he can, believe him.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> I know you're red pilled now but you don't have to be that obvious about your falsehoods and bipartisanship.
> 
> Open borders as we all know means no border security, you can spin all you like, but lying and smearing is lazy.


Oh okay, you're using a purposefully narrow definition to support your laughable defense of the Democratic Party. :lol

I don't care if there's guards there or not if they're just going to escort them inside and then cut them loose, which is what we have now. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*

Lmao the usual suspects claiming racism whenever there are any universal, fair expectations of people put in place. :lol Really reveals who the true racists are. That soft bigotry of lowered expectations, so popular with Woke White Leftists.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



deepelemblues said:


> Wow you're racist as fuck
> 
> Thinking middle class or higher educated people only are white and exist in Europe
> 
> The fuck is wrong with you racist


Hey Eastern Europe is chuck full of nothing but rich white Euros! 



CamillePunk said:


> Lmao the usual suspects claiming racism whenever there are any universal, fair expectations of people put in place. :lol Really reveals who the true racists are. That soft bigotry of lowered expectations, so popular with Woke White Leftists.


I am pretty sure this has been going on in a while, I mean why would you want people coming just to sit on assistance? I highly doubt this is even a new policy, kind of like how the camps were around when Obama was President and around before him and before that other President and so on and so forth until time indefinite.


----------



## deepelemblues

No civil or criminal penalties for crossing the border without permission
No increase in the number of immigration judges
Broadening of the asylum criteria so things like domestic abuse, high crime levels, or bad economic conditions in a migrant's country of origin qualify the migrant for asylum (which is supposed to be for people who are repressed by their government or are suffering pogroms, not my husband beats me or my neighborhood is gang infested or the economy sucks)
No verification of the validity of the asylum claims made under these broader standards
Minimal or no detainment of those who claim asylum until their case is determined

That is de facto open borders. If you come here, you can pick from a host of reasons for claiming asylum that are unprecedented and essentially grant anyone on the earth not residing in the US a valid asylum claim, you will not be held until your court date, and there are so few judges your case won't be heard until 3-4 years after you claim asylum anyway, which you will spend living free in the United States. If you don't show up to your court date no one will come after you 

That is de facto open borders no matter how angrily you insist it isn't 

That is also the position of all the Democratic candidates... except for those that also want to completely abolish ICE and CBP as well


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Miss Sally said:


> Hey Eastern Europe is chuck full of nothing but rich white Euros!
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure this has been going on in a while, I mean why would you want people coming just to sit on assistance? I highly doubt this is even a new policy, kind of like how the camps were around when Obama was President and around before him and before that other President and so on and so forth until time indefinite.


Because they and their kids and their kids' kids will eventually be solid Democrat-voting citizens.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> Deportation. There's also this idea of sneaking in illegally, the majority don't sneak in and they're generally working. Most tend to stay illegally.
> 
> I don't agree with free healthcare unless it's a life threatening emergency or kids, we don't really have that even in the UK, although to be fair our system is abused because we have a poor way to monitor who uses it.


There needs to exist some fear of punishment. If there were large groups of people illegally entering Disneyland do you think they would just escort them out of the park and call it a day? What kind of message does that send to would be trespassers? More than likely they're pressing charges.

A crime is a crime. Entering the country illegally and staying in the country illegally are both crimes, hence they need to be criminalized.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161427147187056641
Wow, this guy just totally destroyed the "county of immigrants/muh poem" arguments. :lol Really impressive.


----------



## deepelemblues

Erin Burnett admitting that she couldn't get admission as an immigrant to the US on her own merits when she says she wouldn't be here if her grandparents had been denied residency :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



CamillePunk said:


> Because they and their kids and their kids' kids will eventually be solid Democrat-voting citizens.


That's not going to much matter when Texas and a few other states turn Blue. 

I'm sure people will call it a triumph when we officially become a one party State. At least then the mask will come off because as Americans have shown, they're incapable of voting outside of the home team. 

I'm sure there will be some party migration, like the one that supposedly changed the Democrat/Republican party, which in reality didn't change much. 

Maybe then we'll get some honesty :laugh:


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

I loved it when she said.. _"And I'm anchor on CNN"_... as if to insinuate she's special or something and we should all be so blessed to have welcomed her family here.

I don't think she understands how replaceable and unimportant she is. She reads words off a teleprompter. She's not exactly some indispensable member of society.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: U.S. to decline citizenship to legal immigrants on public assistance*



Miss Sally said:


> That's not going to much matter when Texas and a few other states turn Blue.


That's literally _why_ states like Texas will inevitably turn blue. 

What we're in for will be a lot messier than a mere political realignment.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Erin Burnett admitting that she couldn't get admission as an immigrant to the US on her own merits when she says she wouldn't be here if her grandparents had been denied residency :lol


Guess she didn't get the memo that Europeans get a free pass. Which is why I know so many eastern Europeans who had to go through tons of red tape to get here while people from Mexico and Central/South America just waltz in, skip a court date, and have anchor babies all while one of the two major parties caters to their every whim. 'Cause our country is so damn white supremacist. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

Wait, shouldn't leftists be totally in support of this? :lol It's the government preventing social media companies, aka giant corporations owned by billionaires, from censoring people. 

Ah right, most of the censorship happens to the right, so they just happen to be on the corporations' side on this issue. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Guess she didn't get the memo that Europeans get a free pass. Which is why I know so many eastern Europeans who had to go through tons of red tape to get here while people from Mexico and Central/South America just waltz in, skip a court date, and have anchor babies all while one of the two major parties caters to their every whim. 'Cause our country is so damn white supremacist. :lol


Geographic privilege is a serious issue of social justice

Why should Mexicans or Hondurans benefit from their privilege of geographic proximity to the United States, a privilege Ukrainians or Nigerians do not enjoy. The oppression resulting from this unfair system of physical realities is intolerable


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Guess she didn't get the memo that Europeans get a free pass. Which is why I know so many eastern Europeans who had to go through tons of red tape to get here while people from Mexico and Central/South America just waltz in, skip a court date, and have anchor babies all while one of the two major parties caters to their every whim. 'Cause our country is so damn white supremacist. :lol


Why is it, in your opinion, that all the attention goes to anchor babies and people sneaking across the border when the majority of people in the country illegally entered legally initially and overstayed their visas?


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deportation. There's also this idea of sneaking in illegally, the majority don't sneak in and they're generally working. Most tend to stay illegally.
> 
> I don't agree with free healthcare unless it's a life threatening emergency or kids, we don't really have that even in the UK, although to be fair our system is abused because we have a poor way to monitor who uses it.
> 
> 
> 
> There needs to exist some fear of punishment.
Click to expand...

No, not really, that's just objectively not a deterrent. Punishment should be used to give victims of crime justice and to keep the populace safe because they don't work as deterrence, most psychological studies already support this. 

There are no real victims of illegal immigration, therefore punishment is a pointless, instead of just deporting them you now sit them in centres and seperate them from families costing you billions.

A crime is a crime, but anyone with an ounce of knowledge knows you can break the law and not be criminalised by it being a civil infraction, so let's not pull that bullshit.


----------



## Tater

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*



CamillePunk said:


> Wait, shouldn't leftists be totally in support of this? :lol It's the government preventing social media companies, aka giant corporations owned by billionaires, from censoring people.
> 
> Ah right, most of the censorship happens to the right, so they just happen to be on the corporations' side on this issue. :lol


A few things here...

One, it depends on the leftist. An authoritarian leftist might be in favor of the government controlling social media companies. A libertarian leftist like myself wants concentrations of power broken up. The social media companies should not have so much consolidated power that they are capable of censoring the internet and the government should not have the power to censor anyone. I say this as a free speech absolutist.

Secondly, "most of the censorship happens to the right" is not a factually correct statement. The people getting censored are the ones who are anti-establishment. It's not a left v right issue. Anyone who opposes the fascist status quo faces the risk of censorship. 

Lastly, you should not trust this news as the government preventing social media companies from censoring people. A lot of the censorship that has already taken place has been happening because the social media companies are colluding with government funded think tanks. Which raises the question, if the government has already been influencing censorship on the internet, why would they now want to stop censorship on the internet? Maaaaaaaaaaybe there is more to this story than meets the eye.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*



Tater said:


> A few things here...
> 
> One, it depends on the leftist. An authoritarian leftist might be in favor of the government controlling social media companies. A libertarian leftist like myself wants concentrations of power broken up. The social media companies should not have so much consolidated power that they are capable of censoring the internet and the government should not have the power to censor anyone. I say this as a free speech absolutist.
> 
> Secondly, "most of the censorship happens to the right" is not a factually correct statement. The people getting censored are the ones who are anti-establishment. It's not a left v right issue. Anyone who opposes the fascist status quo faces the risk of censorship.
> 
> Lastly, you should not trust this news as the government preventing social media companies from censoring people. A lot of the censorship that has already taken place has been happening because the social media companies are colluding with government funded think tanks. Which raises the question, if the government has already been influencing censorship on the internet, why would they now want to stop censorship on the internet? Maaaaaaaaaaybe there is more to this story than meets the eye.


And maaaaaaaaaybe that is a lot of reaching to find a way to both be a free speech absolutist but also preserve the status quo of increasing censorship. Censorship and manipulation are happening. They are increasing. It is not going to stop unless some entity forces it to stop. You don't trust the regulatory state to stop it, fine. Who is going to then? You? Civil liberties and human rights organizations? The courts? Congress? Please. All three of the latter are, to varying degrees, in agreement that censorship is good, or that it is not their position to address it. The market? The market distorted by monopolistic practices that were given free rein by the last administration because those practices benefited companies that aided the political activity of that administration? 

Your choices are the government breaks them up or the government proscribes their censorious practices. Yes the former would be preferable. If the current administration has its way, you may get both. Oh you have one other choice. The status quo. Where the dissemination of information is manipulated and censored so as to suit the political sensibilities of a small cabal of narcissistic ideologues in the Bay Area and their financial/political enablers in LA, New York and DC. And the sensibilities of the authoritarian leftist Chinese government that they are more than happy to develop repressive technologies for. After all, the absolute social, political and economic power exercised by that government in its domain is precisely the power these tech fascists wish they possessed. It's technocratism on a scale and of a convenience the technocrats of yesteryear could only dream of. After all, they're so much smarter and better than the unwashed masses

The United States and especially Britain weren't exactly the keenest on allying with the Soviet Union to defeat Hitlerism, but they did so anyway. You want to stop the corrosive, iniquitous control over information and thus politics and society as a whole exercised by tech monopolies, you may have to accept some allies you're leery about as well. Allies of convenience, isn't that the definition of a Popular Front?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

Oh no, large tech companies won't be able to censor people to their liking and work together to suppress information and push their own narratives.

Heaven forbid these companies have someone telling them no, oh dear, what shall we do?!

Why doesn't someone think of the children!? Or better yet investigate as to what is really going on. 

But you don't trust our Government? Why not? People practically beg for the Government to take their rights everyday. How dare you deny them the safety of Facebook, Google and every other large tech company that has been exposed to work against people!


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

I'm interested in seeing so many actively wanting the Government to get involved in what private companies allow on their platform, what with that and people clamouring for more Government input over borders I'm starting to wonder if you guys want Venezuela or whether its just the people who want universal health care that want it.

Personally, I don't see a major problem with FB etc having more regulation, they've banned a few lefties I enjoy because they are against the status quo but this seems like its done the wrong way.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*



Draykorinee said:


> I'm interested in seeing so many actively wanting the Government to get involved in what private companies allow on their platform, what with that and people clamouring for more Government input over borders I'm starting to wonder if you guys want Venezuela or whether its just the people who want universal health care that want it.
> 
> Personally, I don't see a major problem with FB etc having more regulation, they've banned a few lefties I enjoy because they are against the status quo but this seems like its done the wrong way.


The right way would be to make these companies public speaking areas. The president and politicians cannot block people, it's already kind of one yet the Companies still control far too much.

Tater is right, they need to be broken up and anything that involves social media needs to be considered a public space. The law just hasn't caught up to technology.

I don't think the Government can handle doing it with overwhelming bureaucracy, they may have good intentions but.. it's the Government. Neither the Government or big Tech should be censoring anyone.


----------



## A-C-P

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*

Good Luck With That :heston


----------



## Tater

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*



deepelemblues said:


> And maaaaaaaaaybe that is a lot of reaching to find a way to both be a free speech absolutist but also preserve the status quo of increasing censorship.


I'm just going to go ahead and stop you at your first sentence. Regardless of our own political opinion differences, the one thing you cannot accuse me of is being in favor of censorship of any kind.






I've been opposing all forms of censorship since I was old enough to understand the concept.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Anybody follow the world markets?*

I just wanted some different perspectives on what's going on right now. Things are looking very shaky right about now; sort of like late 2007. There was a lot of denial in online communities about the shakiness of the situation, but if you follow the money, it looks like people are placing big bets on a global recession and/or financial crisis.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Anybody follow the world markets?*

Used to, but stopped when I realised it wasn't driven by any rational thought and was prone to fear and manipulation. I cannot stand anything resembling stock markets now because of that. It's an illusion that people just bought into collectively and it is fucking over so many.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Anybody follow the world markets?*



Kabraxal said:


> Used to, but stopped when I realised it wasn't driven by any rational thought and was prone to fear and manipulation. I cannot stand anything resembling stock markets now because of that. It's an illusion that people just bought into collectively and it is fucking over so many.


That certainly is the case, especially in the last 11 years. But I do believe that everything will correct to fair value, one way or another.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Anybody follow the world markets?*



DesoloutionRow said:


> That certainly is the case, especially in the last 11 years. But I do believe that everything will correct to fair value, one way or another.


I think my issue is, is that fair value has no real objective definition. But then, I've had the problem with currency too. The deeper you delve into it, the more irrational it becomes. Granted, it makes far more sense comparative to the market, but it is frightening how we tie so much of our material life into shared delusions. 

The moment enough people stop agreeing with the consensus value of money... that is going to be one ugly day.


----------



## DA

*Re: Anybody follow the world markets?*

First VerticalScope tells us that they are moving da forum onto a new domain or some shite, and now da world economy is about to collapse

Can't help but think that da two are linked in some way


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Anybody follow the world markets?*



Kabraxal said:


> I think my issue is, is that fair value has no real objective definition. But then, I've had the problem with currency too. The deeper you delve into it, the more irrational it becomes. Granted, it makes far more sense comparative to the market, but it is frightening how we tie so much of our material life into shared delusions.
> 
> The moment enough people stop agreeing with the consensus value of money... that is going to be one ugly day.


Currencies need to be backed by hard assets and those hard asset prices should be dictated by the open market. Right now, we don't have this mechanism. We have paper derivatives markets that (as you said) manipulate the prices up or down and there is no real price discovery.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Anybody follow the world markets?*



DesoloutionRow said:


> Currencies need to be backed by hard assets and those hard asset prices should be dictated by the open market. Right now, we don't have this mechanism. We have paper derivatives markets that (as you said) manipulate the prices up or down and there is no real price discovery.


Yeah, the gold standard wasn't perfect, but at least it was relatively stable. It still suffers from the same root problem, but gold/silver/etc are less likely to suddenly be devalued in the public consciousness as compared to a piece of paper that has value because.... someone says it has value.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Anybody follow the world markets?*



Kabraxal said:


> Yeah, the gold standard wasn't perfect, but at least it was relatively stable. It still suffers from the same root problem, but gold/silver/etc are less likely to suddenly be devalued in the public consciousness as compared to a piece of paper that has value because.... someone says it has value.


Being tied to a gold standard is also likely to keep government spending in check. They can't just keep borrowing into the abyss without some serious repercussions. It keeps them as honest as they ever will be.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*



Tater said:


> Secondly, "most of the censorship happens to the right" is not a factually correct statement. The people getting censored are the ones who are anti-establishment. It's not a left v right issue. Anyone who opposes the fascist status quo faces the risk of censorship.


Most censorship definitely happens to the right. That's not debatable from the evidence I've seen. Sure left-wing anti-establishment types get censored too, but even PRO-establishment right-wingers get censored. :lol Yeah sorry, not even close.

I don't support this EO or government expanding its power over the internet in any way, unlike fake "left-libertarians" who bemoan this but support net neutrality. (Y)


----------



## DesolationRow

A worthwhile read, only one-third of which will be quoted here. Whole article with the link:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-little-known-mission-support-al-qaedas-role-libya-73271



> America's Little-Known Mission to Support Al Qaeda's Role in Libya
> 
> The rebellion in Libya was led by Islamist veterans of wars in the Middle East.
> Thus, the United States and its allies, not realizing it at the time, intervened to support a group of terrorists.
> 
> by Alan J. Kuperman
> 
> HE 2011 intervention in Libya, authorized by the United Nations and led by the United States and some NATO allies, has been criticized for two main reasons. First, it was justified on phony grounds—that Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi was slaughtering civilians, when in fact he was carefully targeting rebels who had attacked first. Second, the interveners aimed at regime change and thus failed in their ostensible humanitarian mission, instead magnifying the death toll at least ten-fold while fostering anarchy that persists until the present day. Yet perhaps the most profound drawback has remained hidden: the intervention rescued a rebellion that was actually led by Al Qaeda militants, not by pro-Western liberals as reported at the time.
> 
> This starkly contradicts the press narrative of 2011, which claimed that Libya’s unrest had started with peaceful protests over the arrest of a human rights lawyer. Allegedly, the regime used lethal force against these nonviolent demonstrators, compelling them to reluctantly take up arms in self-defense. These amateur rebels then supposedly seized control of eastern Libya within days, prompting Qaddafi to deploy forces to commit genocide, which was stopped only by intervention. In reality, however, scholars and human rights groups have long disproved key parts of this story: the uprising was violent from the first day, the regime targeted militants rather than peaceful protesters and Qaddafi never even rhetorically threatened unarmed civilians.
> 
> The remaining mystery has been who actually launched the rebellion in eastern Libya—that is, which militants did the interveners rescue from defeat and help overthrow Qaddafi? The conventional narrative improbably suggests that Libyan human rights lawyers, reacting spontaneously to regime violence, somehow acquired arms and conquered half the country in a week. The truth makes much more sense: the rebellion was led by Islamist veterans of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Thus, the United States and its allies, not realizing it at the time, intervened to support Al Qaeda.
> 
> This remarkable story has remained obscured for eight years due to deceit and gullibility. The deception was spearheaded by Libya’s non-Islamist opposition groups who sought intervention to overthrow Qaddafi by falsely claiming he was massacring civilians. The gullible audience was initially the international news media, which parroted the propaganda, and then Western politicians who responded with intervention. Meanwhile, the Islamist rebels refrained from touting their Al Qaeda connection, in order to benefit from the interveners’ supply of airpower, weapons and training.
> 
> After years of research, I unraveled this mystery starting with an unlikely source: YouTube. Perhaps not surprisingly, in the age of smartphones, some rebels videoed their exploits and uploaded them in near real time. Western analysts largely overlooked this evidence because it was unconventional, posed language barriers and contradicted the conventional wisdom. However, the videos suggest an alternative history, which I was able to confirm using retrospective interviews and fragments of contemporaneous reporting that had been overwhelmed at the time by the flood of propaganda.
> 
> This evidence reveals that the Islamists planned the launch of the rebellion prior to any peaceful protests and then used snowball tactics, targeting a series of increasingly important security installations by obtaining weapons from each facility to use against the next larger one. At many such targets, some of the defending forces defected out of fear or sympathy, further bolstering the rebels for their next assault. The militants initially attacked police stations with rocks and petrol bombs to get firearms, which they used against internal-security forces to acquire higher-caliber weapons. In turn, they utilized this materiel to attack an army barracks to acquire even heavier weapons and armored vehicles, which they then deployed to capture eastern Libya’s main garrison and four air bases—all during the week of February 15–21, 2011.
> 
> The Islamists timed their rebellion to coincide with a planned, nonviolent “Day of Rage” on February 17, 2011, which had been organized online for several weeks mainly by Libyan expatriates in Europe inspired by the Arab Spring uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. Qaddafi’s regime tried to preempt the advertised peaceful protests by arresting a suspected organizer, Fathi Terbil, in Benghazi on February 15. However, this fueled public outrage, triggering premature starts to both the pacifist and militant uprisings that same evening. International media attention initially focused on Benghazi, where the largest nonviolent protests occurred, but the more consequential events started in two smaller cities in eastern Libya—Derna and Beida—both hotbeds of militant Islam. In Derna, the historic epicenter of Libyan jihadists, “plans were in place from February 14” to attack security institutions, according to Yasser Ben Halim, a longtime Islamist militant who participated in the planning of the rebellion and then fought his way to the capital, eventually becoming head of the Tripoli Military Council’s protection forces after the war.
> 
> Even in Benghazi, some protesters resorted to violence from the start, provoking a rapid escalatory spiral with government forces but failing to acquire sufficient firepower on their own to capture the city’s military base, the Katiba Al-Fadhil Abu Omar, the largest in eastern Libya. On the nights of February 15 and 16, these militants threw petrol bombs and rocks at police and at a Revolutionary Committee building and set cars on fire. Police at first responded only with rubber bullets and water cannon, so that most of the thirty-eight victims injured in the opening confrontation were security forces. This initial restraint by the regime was because its top officials had agreed, “that we needed to deal with the events without using force,” according to Mustafa Jalil, who was Justice Minister at the time but then defected to lead the political opposition. A Libyan commander subsequently confirmed to UN investigators that, “only after demonstrators acquired arms did the Qaddafi forces begin using live ammunition.”
> 
> On February 17, the Benghazi protesters attacked and burned additional police stations, security installations and Revolutionary Committee buildings. They seized AK-47s and heavier machine guns from a military base in Benghazi’s al-Rahba neighborhood, and in the city center they launched their first unsuccessful attack on the Katiba. Government forces responded with their first live-fire in Benghazi, aiming to wound rather than kill on this day, according to a French doctor who worked in a city hospital. By February 18, the protesters reportedly had burned all police stations in Benghazi and set ablaze two internal security buildings, freeing prisoners and seizing additional weapons and ammunition. Police officers fled for shelter to Benghazi’s public security headquarters, where militants attacked them again and set the building on fire.
> 
> Qaddafi then reinforced the Katiba with additional troops who used deadly force against the attackers, thereby also harming some unarmed protesters. According to a doctor who treated casualties in the city’s trauma ward, the militants commandeered construction equipment in attempts to breach the walls of the garrison, and “the young people were making human shields for the drivers of the bulldozers.” One of Qaddafi’s sons, Saadi, who was in the garrison, justified the government’s use of force as follows: “When those guys came with weapons and wanted to attack the Kateeba, of course they were gonna get in and kill the soldiers. So they [the soldiers] had to defend.” By contrast, when confronting unarmed protesters at the main courthouse on February 18, Qaddafi’s security forces fired only tear gas. The regime survived these violent and peaceful protests in Benghazi for five days, until the arrival of better-armed Islamists from the east.
> 
> DERNA WAS long known as Libya’s militant Islamist heartland. In the mid-1990s, it had been the capital of the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group (LIFG), the biggest previous threat to Qaddafi’s rule. Several years later, Derna became the world’s most concentrated source of Al Qaeda foreign fighters to Iraq. Thus, it should be unsurprising that in 2011, Derna was also the first place in Libya where the rebels obtained military weapons to confront the regime. On February 16, less than a day after the Benghazi protests started, Derna’s “Islamist gunmen . . . assaulted an army weapons depot and seized 250 weapons, killed four soldiers and wounded 16 others,” Agence France Presse reported. These jihadis were assisted by the defection of an army colonel, who “joined them and provided them with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, three pieces of anti-aircraft artillery and 70 Kalashnikov” rifles, according to a Libyan security official.
> 
> Two days later, following Friday prayers on February 18, Derna’s Islamist militants launched a broader offensive. They attacked the port and seized seventy military vehicles, and set fire to the general security directorate, internal security directorate and Revolutionary Committee building. As security forces fled, the militants seized control of these installations and the city. According to a supporter of the rebels, they also captured Libyan officials, locked them in a jail cell and then burned the building with the officials inside.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Anybody follow the world markets?*

Every day.

The course correction signals have been mounting atop one another for a while, and particularly since around the first of this month. The super-rich have been preparing themselves for a course correction for a while, and especially last week, with many "tapping the brakes" as myriad articles put it. Equities have become less and less attractive while real estate holdings are being buttressed. By traditional standards the main yield curve inverting with the two-year yield exceeding the 10-year rate is as profound a foreshadowing as one could ask for in terms of what is appearing to be a probable oncoming recession. However, the traditional standards may--and, one could easily contend likely--do not apply. The 2008 collapse was a "teachable moment" after the fact for central bank planners. It is not like central banks have sought the purchasing of bonds over the past decade by accident. This is one of the primary reasons why for all of the troubles which are characteristic of those travailing their way through the markets, an all-out big collapse such as the one in 2008 is not quite so probable. 

It is more that the elite movers and shakers have in concert with the central banks have succeeded a good deal in masking the "gravity-defying" to provide some colorful terminology for the processes of the Federal Reserve-sanctified and -processed doubling down on their financial practices. 

Having said that, a recession seems inevitable, and has seemed inevitable for a while. The Dow had already corrected back to roughly a year-and-a-half's worth of "growth" and now dropping 800 is only more ominous. 

Germany's economy is quite export-dependent, so the present international trade rifts have directly harmed the German economy. 

Business investment has dried up considerably over the past several months compared to earlier in the year, with the usually-reliable firm Macroeconomic Advisers posting that the slower growth in the U.S. economy is calculated at a present 1.7%. The Federal Reserve did indeed forecast that the economy was taking a hit this summer as the handling of interest rates in July strongly suggested. 

It should be remembered that the stock market, for good and/or ill, is not the best measurement of an economy while corporate buybacks are so liberally sought. The significant rippling effects of share repurchases have been a major element to the last decade. Dividends are no longer so crucial due to the ever-expanding proliferation of buybacks. Dividends have been becoming less critical, too, for they pass along a more modest return to shareholders as stock buybacks have been engendering more lavish returns per dollar. While the old-fashioned balance sheet of a company may take a hit, the benefit does float to the particularly select cluster of shareholders which is what ultimately matters for those initiating the buybacks. The phrase, "the game is rigged," comes to mind.

Due to the aforementioned machinations behind the market, however, especially with the mass bond purchasing that has been witnessed over the last decade, this obvious slowdown could be overcome without too much hassle compared to the events of 2008 and 2009.


----------



## Tater

*Re: And so it begins- Leaked documents show White House is planning executive order to censor the Internet*



CamillePunk said:


> Most censorship definitely happens to the right. That's not debatable from the evidence I've seen. Sure left-wing anti-establishment types get censored too, but even PRO-establishment right-wingers get censored. :lol Yeah sorry, not even close.
> 
> I don't support this EO or government expanding its power over the internet in any way, unlike fake "left-libertarians" who bemoan this but support net neutrality. (Y)


Net neutrality does not give government more power over the internet. It takes away power from the ISPs. In reality, NN would reduce government power over the internet because government funded think tanks like the Atlantic Council would no longer be able to influence what gets censored and what doesn't. It's not a distinction I expect you to understand and I really don't want to argue the point with you because we have been getting along so well lately.

How many on the left are getting censored compared to how many on the right are getting censored is missing the point. They are not getting censored because they are left or right. They are getting censored because it's a big club and they ain't in it. 

The best solution is to break up these concentrations of power, both from the government and the internet. We don't even need to pass new laws. Trump could do it by enforcing the antitrust laws that are already on the books. Whatever is going on with this XO, I am can promise you they are not doing it for our benefit or to prevent censorship of alternate media.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> Why is it, in your opinion, that all the attention goes to anchor babies and people sneaking across the border when the majority of people in the country illegally entered legally initially and overstayed their visas?


Probably because the people who came in legally passed our screening process and we know who they are whereas the people who came in illegally we literally know nothing about or how many there are. Pretty obvious which one should be the bigger concern.


----------



## 7x0v

*Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-analysis-finds-parts-of-the-u-s-have-already-warmed-close-to-critical-2-degree-level

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/08/13/the-energy-202-here-s-where-the-u-s-is-warming-the-fastest/5d51956f602ff1306728b15d/

https://www.noaa.gov/news/july-2019-was-hottest-month-on-record-for-planet

Many consider global warming beyond 2 degrees Celsius a critical threshold. World leaders who signed the 2015 Paris climate accords used it as a benchmark of success. *Scientists warn virtually all the world’s coral reefs will disappear should we cross that point*.

*But in many places in the United States, average temperatures have already climbed near — or even past — that mark*. These places, where average global temperatures are approaching *or have even gone beyond 2 degrees Celsius* above pre-Industrial Revolution levels, count as among the fastest-warming places on Earth, The Post's Steven Mufson, Chris Mooney, Juliet Eilperin and John Muyskens report.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161679740354387969
:mj4 Living in that bubble of privilege.

"Why don't they just get high-paying jobs?' 

"Why don't the homeless just buy homes?" 

This is what happens when you spend all your time with elitists and haven't actually talked to a real person in years.


----------



## 7x0v

*Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-official-says-statue-of-liberty-poem-is-about-europeans

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49323324?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada&link_location=live-reporting-story

WASHINGTON (AP) — A top Trump administration official says that the famous inscription on the Statue of Liberty welcoming immigrants into the country is about “people coming from Europe” and that America is looking to receive migrants “who can stand on their own two feet.”

The comments on Tuesday from Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, came a day after the Trump administration announced it would seek to deny green cards to migrants who seek Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers or other forms of public assistance. The move, and Cuccinelli’s defense, prompted an outcry from Democrats and immigration advocates who said the policy would favor wealthier immigrants and disadvantage those from poorer countries in Latin America and Africa.

“This administration finally admitted what we’ve known all along: They think the Statue of Liberty only applies to white people,” tweeted former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, a Democratic presidential candidate.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



> BURNETT: The poem reads, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of the teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” “Wretched,” “poor,” “refuse,” right? That’s what the poem says America is supposed to stand for. So what do you think America stands for?
> 
> CUCCINELLI: Well, of course that poem was referring back to people coming from Europe, where they had class-based societies. Where people were considered wretched if they weren’t in the right class. And it was introduced – it was written one year – one year after the first federal public charge rule was written that says, and I’ll quote it, “Any person unable to take care of himself without becoming a public charge,” unquote, would be inadmissible, or in the terms that my agency deals with, they can’t do what’s called adjusting status, getting a Green Card, becoming legal permanent residents. Same exact time, Erin, same exact time. And the year is went on the Statue of Liberty, 1903, another federal law was passed expanding the elements of public charge by Congress.


Of course Mr. Cuccinelli was accurate in his description of the historical context of the poem, and the cultural and legal environment prevailing at the time of both its publishing and the time of its inscription onto the Statue of Liberty, to make the argument that this policy is the same in intent as previous immigration policies in effect at a time when the vast majority of immigrants were poor whites from southern and eastern Europe. And so consequently, and obviously, those policies mainly effected poor whites from southern and eastern Europe

This endless dishonesty for the purpose of dividing the country into the forces of light and the forces of darkness is going to result in dire consequences on a larger scale than it already has


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

Is about white people*

This was written at a time when it was predominantly white Europeans seems the excuse for this but when people bring up the second ammendment and guns that fire at X rate a second instead of muskets people lose their minds.


----------



## V. Skybox

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

They're not even being subtle.

Not even impeachment will be enough. We owe it to ourselves as a species to drive far-right politics off the face of the Earth once and for all.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



Draykorinee said:


> Is about white people*
> 
> This was written at a time when it was predominantly white Europeans seems the excuse for this but when people bring up the second ammendment and guns that fire at X rate a second instead of muskets people lose their minds.


This is true. It is why the Second Amendment is a fascinating subject, for it serves as a bit of a vector space or scalar for myriad interconnected matters. The authors of the amendment could never have dreamed that that which became the continental (not to mention economically and militarily worldwide) empire it is today would see the percentage of those hailing from Europe among its population precipitously falling as it has for decades. 

Which is why, in terms of addressing the Second Amendment, it is important to bear this point. It is a particularly complex point when one considers that enthusiastic ownership of firearms and celebration of same is effectively an implicitly "white" phenomenon, per capita, in the U.S. 

The National Rifle Association's history on this is checkered and rather inconsistent, but intriguing to read about. 

Also, just out of noting a counterpoint on one element of such an argument, the Girardoni 22-shot air rifle, which was magazine-fed, and an almost noiseless .46 repeating rifle which the Austrian Army utilized was purchased twice over by Thomas Jefferson. Several biographies note that Jefferson enjoyed marching down the thoroughfare with such a rifle out of self-amusement. Obviously weaponry has become dramatically more efficient but it is objectively a somewhat unavoidable point, regarding Jefferson and other men belonging to that generation, as they knew of a weapon which at least fits several criteria relating to controversial guns. 

In any event, perhaps Ken Cuccinelli is simply an Italian supremacist! :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

Ben Shapiro missed his calling as a political mole to make people calling themselves "conservatives" in the 2010s look duplicitous and loathsome. 

Or did he...? :hmm:

Shapiro is doubtless excited about potential conflict with Iran, however, something for which he has ostensibly pined since childhood:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...an-oil-supertanker/2016823001/?csp=chromepush



> U.S. moves to seize Iranian oil supertanker
> 
> Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY Published 6:13 a.m. ET Aug. 15, 2019
> 
> The United States has applied to seize an Iranian oil supertanker, according to authorities in Gibraltar, a British overseas territory where the ship was due to be released Thursday from detention after being impounded by authorities last month.
> 
> "The U.S. Department of Justice has applied to seize the Grace 1 on a number of allegations which are now being considered,” the government said in a statement, adding that the matter would be reviewed by the court at 4 p.m. local time.
> 
> The Gibraltar Chronicle reported that the U.S. Department of Justice filed a last minute application during a hearing in Gibraltar's Supreme Court to extend the tanker's detention. The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
> 
> The tanker "Grace 1" was seized last month in a British Royal Navy operation off the coast of Gibraltar. Authorities suspected it of violating European Union sanctions on oil shipments to Syria. Its seizure has deepened tensions in the Persian Gulf, where Iran claims control of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway for oil shipments.
> 
> There was no immediate reaction from Iran.


Have to give the Iranians credit, in the sense that the sanctions placed on them are rather clearly devastating what was left of their economy, and now they are seeking to engender a sufficient degree of countering force and mayhem in the Middle East so as to be a large troublemaker with whom the U.S. must come to terms. It is fundamentally taking a page out of the Pyongyang regime's playbook in North Korea. 

"To Be Continued."


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

I get into arguments with people over this, but the only reason why racism continues to be pervasive in America is because I'm pretty convinced at least 50% of this country are a combination of full on racists and individuals who don't *care* about racism (where racist institutions continue to get fed through inaction as there are those who empower them while everyone pretends they don't exist) to do anything about it because racism doesn't impact *them *in any way. We're also living in an era of white-lash where no matter what anyone says about anything a good chunk of white people will lash out and find a way to punish minorities in some way because they know they can. Whether it's by voting in a racist (like they did in Florida), or looking the other way when someone does or says something racist.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

Wrong thread somehow sorry.


----------



## Draykorinee

The Dow taking a bit of a hit, there's always a promise of a recession, idiots like Bill Maher actively hope for it. It is an itneresting time, there's been a feeling of 'the rapture' like bust for a while but it keeps bouncing back.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

Well, duh. it was Europeans migrating in at the time.

I'm not even sure if the person who wrote that poem was even American, the Statue was from France and the whole melting pot thing came from someone who didn't even live in America. At one time America was this magical place to poor Europeans because Europe sucked, it was constantly at war, having famine and the Elite mistreatment of the poor was at an astonishingly high rate. Coming to America with nothing was better than being in Europe with something. 

Also white people are evil, this proves it. Not all but a good chunk are probably racist. We now know the problem.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

Nobody cares.

We cannot get people who are born and raised in the same country, who speak the same language and share many cultural similarities but have different skin tones to cooperate. 

In no way will the world come together and do anything.


----------



## UniversalGleam

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

this clip just about sums things up. 






people generally do not listen to anything until things reach a brink of destruction and then they are willing to change. Its only when the world is ending will people actually take note of what is happening, until that time people will carry on as they always have, at this point, change is just an inconvenience not a necessity. 

I still stand by that its a waste of time for me to recycle a marmite jar when the likes of china is billowing up billions of tonnes of CO2 inside a year. The change for these things has to be much wider for it to have any real effect.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

The thought that I'm leaving a world to my five-year-old son that might look like a Mad Max hellscape by the time he's my age is a frightening, humbling, profoundly sad thought, and I have no idea what to do about it. It sucks.


----------



## Cowabunga

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Strike Force said:


> The thought that I'm leaving a world to my five-year-old son that might look like a Mad Max hellscape by the time he's my age is a frightening, humbling, profoundly sad thought, and I have no idea what to do about it. It sucks.


Maybe this isn't the right time to say this and sorry if I'm about to sound VERY insensitive but this is yet another reason to add to my list of why I never want to have kids.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Miss Sally said:


> Nobody cares.
> 
> We cannot get people who are born and raised in the same country, who speak the same language and share many cultural similarities but have different skin tones to cooperate.
> 
> In no way will the world come together and do anything.


Until its too late.

You put a giant existential threat like an massive alien force threatening to wipe out the entire human race, I'm sure humanity would be more than willing to cooperate to defend against the alien invasion, if not immediately perhaps after the aliens have destroyed one or two major nations.

But climate change isn't an in your face threat like an alien invasion. Its subtle, and the effects won't be a major issue for the human race until long after the window of opportunity we have to help tackle it properly has gone and our decendants will be stuck trying to fix the planet that they will blame us for helping to fuck up.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Cowabunga said:


> Maybe this isn't the right time to say this and sorry if I'm about to sound VERY insensitive but this is yet another reason to add to my list of why I never want to have kids.


That's not insensitive. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to have kids. It does cause you to worry about macro-level issues over which you have virtually no control. I'm probably exaggerating the pace of the degeneration of things, but the thought that it's even possible that my only son might live in a really difficult world just makes me feel guilty about something I didn't even do. It is what it is.


----------



## Cowabunga

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Strike Force said:


> That's not insensitive. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to have kids. It does cause you to worry about macro-level issues over which you have virtually no control. I'm probably exaggerating the pace of the degeneration of things, but the thought that it's even possible that my only son might live in a really difficult world just makes me feel guilty about something I didn't even do. It is what it is.


Yeah, although my top reasons not to have them are me not being responsible enough or wanting to have the responsibility of being a father and also how much it costs to raise a kid. 

Whenever I hear about parents complaining about their kids or worrying about the world their kids are gonna inherit it makes me feel a bit better for not wanting to have kids, though, lol


----------



## HiddenFlaw

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

Mad max here we come baby :ambrose5


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Strike Force said:


> The thought that I'm leaving a world to my five-year-old son that might look like a Mad Max hellscape by the time he's my age is a frightening, humbling, profoundly sad thought, and I have no idea what to do about it. It sucks.


Baby Boomers can see the effects of what their fuckery has done to their kids and grandkids and it's not stopped them in the slightest. I don't think the majority of people have really considered their kids for the past 40 years. Look at people who live in horrible conditions popping out kids. 

Biological imperative > common sense or thoughts of the future.

Be happy, at least you're self aware enough to actually consider the consequences of the future. :smile2:


----------



## *Eternity*

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

This is what happens when you take an excerpt from a larger passage. You tend to lose the context behind that excerpt, which means somebody can easily insert their own biases into the meaning behind the passage.

Had Ken Cuccinelli quoted the entire poem which says.




> "Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> *Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame."*
> 
> "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


Last time I check the term "world-wide" encompasses everything on Earth, not just one continent.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



*Eternity* said:


> This is what happens when you take an excerpt from a larger passage. You tend to lose the context behind that excerpt, which means somebody can easily insert their own biases into the meaning behind the passage.
> 
> Had Ken Cuccinelli quoted the entire poem which says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I check the term "world-wide" encompasses everything on Earth, not just one continent.


I don't see how anyone can easily insert that worldwide means something else. Maybe laboriously... :hmm:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



Draykorinee said:


> Is about white people*
> 
> This was written at a time when it was predominantly white Europeans seems the excuse for this but when people bring up the second ammendment and guns that fire at X rate a second instead of muskets people lose their minds.


You see a contradiction where none exists

Second amendment 1789: weapons in common possession and use by the people
Second amendment 2019: weapons in common possession and use by the people

Immigration policy 1903: we don't want public charges
Immigration policy 2019: we don't want public charges 

There is no contradiction but you're so desperate for a gotcha you'll grasp at whatever you can no matter how untenable

The poem is not US law or policy and never has has been. We've reached the point where people are seriously arguing an aspirational poem should determine the Overton window of policy. That's the same crap politicians do when they're trawling for votes, idealism everywhere then if they win policy never matches the rosy vision painted for the voters. This is all eminently un-serious


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



deepelemblues said:


> You see a contradiction where none exists
> 
> Second amendment 1789: weapons in common possession and use by the people
> Second amendment 2019: weapons in common possession and use by the people
> 
> Immigration policy 1903: we don't want public charges
> Immigration policy 2019: we don't want public charges
> 
> There is no contradiction but you're so desperate for a gotcha you'll grasp at whatever you can no matter how untenable
> 
> The poem is not US law or policy and never has has been. We've reached the point where people are seriously arguing an aspirational poem should determine the Overton window of policy. That's the same crap politicians do when they're trawling for votes, idealism everywhere then if they win policy never matches the rosy vision painted for the voters. This is all eminently un-serious


if poems are going to dictate policy, I suggest we nominate john Lennon's song "Imagine" as official state policy.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



Miss Sally said:


> if poems are going to dictate policy, I suggest we nominate john Lennon's song "Imagine" as official state policy.


They tried that with about half the world's population in the 20th century, 80-100 million people ended up dead


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

To be a racist first you have to be retarded. I'm mean literally slow, handicapped. Nobody with a semblance of common sense attributes one's character traits to their skin color. Either that or they ate glue in class.

So when you accuse someone of being a racist, you're all but insinuating they're retarded _on top_ of being evil.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is about white people*
> 
> This was written at a time when it was predominantly white Europeans seems the excuse for this but when people bring up the second ammendment and guns that fire at X rate a second instead of muskets people lose their minds.
> 
> 
> 
> You see a contradiction where none exists
Click to expand...

There is, you just don't like it. Selectively choosing 6 or 7 words to suit a narrative is lazy.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

And? Hate to break it to people, but the climate is not and has never been static. Why do humans suddenly think the climate should "freeze" in the optimum comfort zone for humanity when that is actually the exception to its icey rule?


----------



## Kabraxal

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161679740354387969
> :mj4 Living in that bubble of privilege.
> 
> "Why don't they just get high-paying jobs?'
> 
> "Why don't the homeless just buy homes?"
> 
> This is what happens when you spend all your time with elitists and haven't actually talked to a real person in years.


Yeah... that example of "poor life choice" was shit. It makes no sense at all. Of course someone would choose a higher paying job if they actually could.... well absent several qualifications naturally (type of job, personality clash, etc). 

I think the better point would have been to those whining about student debt. There are actually choices involved in that that will not leave someone 40000 dollars in debt.


----------



## ShiningStar

Ben Shapiro and his Daily Wire ilk are mostly just Old School NeoConservative Authortarian's Repackaged to teenagers. Why he is taken serious by anyone is a mystery


----------



## Stephen90

Draykorinee said:


> The Dow taking a bit of a hit, there's always a promise of a recession, idiots like Bill Maher actively hope for it. It is an itneresting time, there's been a feeling of 'the rapture' like bust for a while but it keeps bouncing back.


That's because Maher is an out of touch multi millionaire living in a gated community. A recession wouldn't hurt him at all.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Kabraxal said:


> And? Hate to break it to people, but the climate is not and has never been static. Why do humans suddenly think the climate should "freeze" in the optimum comfort zone for humanity when that is actually the exception to its icey rule?


Nice strawman. Just come out and say you think it's all bullshit if that's what you think. But don't go spouting off about this stuff unless you have a PHD in the field.

The anti-intellectualism in today's society takes a big part of the blame. 'Well somehow I just know better than actual experts in the field that think the complete opposite that I do based on actual evidence'.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

What an ignorant, stupid, tone-deaf thing to say.


----------



## Crona

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



yeahbaby! said:


> Nice strawman. Just come out and say you think it's all bullshit if that's what you think. But don't go spouting off about this stuff unless you have a PHD in the field.
> *
> The anti-intellectualism in today's society takes a big part of the blame.* 'Well somehow I just know better than actual experts in the field that think the complete opposite that I do based on actual evidence'.


Preach. 

Probably because it's hard to make a case against making the world a more livable place without coming across like a fucking sociopath, strawmen and red herrings are the only way.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

"Fake news" "Chinese hoax" "liberal brainwashing"


----------



## Blisstory

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Kabraxal said:


> And? Hate to break it to people, but the climate is not and has never been static. Why do humans suddenly think the climate should "freeze" in the optimum comfort zone for humanity when that is actually the exception to its icey rule?


Please do not think for yourself and do research outside of whats been spoon fed to you. You must obey!


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Blisstory said:


> Please do not think for yourself and do research outside of whats been spoon fed to you. You must obey!


And if not, you must be willing to stand against the barbs of childish tantrums of the new religion and its zealots. 

It's quite amusing at this point. They don't even try to change up the tactics, just insults and mindless ranting.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

So the research you can do on your phone while on the toilet is more valuable than the thousands of climatologists who've studied this shit for decades? That's literally anti-intellectualism, you think you know more than the experts who dedicate their lives to it. You wouldn't defend yourself in court because you read a law book once, you wouldn't perform surgery on yourself because you went on WebMD, but you're willing to risk the fate of the human race on your Googling ability?

Even if ALL the climate scientists are wrong, what's the worse thing that could happen from polluting less? If you're wrong, humanity goes extinct.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Kabraxal said:


> And? Hate to break it to people, but the climate is not and has never been static. Why do humans suddenly think the climate should "freeze" in the optimum comfort zone for humanity when that is actually the exception to its icey rule?


It not remaining static is not the problem, and I'm curious where you got that from. 

The biggest problem is just how fast it is changing. Most projected models based on historical data show that the rate in which change is happening is incredibly fast and completely unprecedented. It's getting to the point where it's not a matter of if million upon millions living on coastal communities will be underwater, its *when*. 

If you do some research, there are already climate refugees who have lost their homes because of climate change, as they're underwater, or have been catastrophically affected by an increase in extreme weather events which could be traced to temperature increased on account of climate change.

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ugees-that-the-world-barely-pays-attention-to


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Probably because the people who came in legally passed our screening process and we know who they are whereas the people who came in illegally we literally know nothing about or how many there are. Pretty obvious which one should be the bigger concern.


And you don't think race has anything to do with it? 

Methinks the bigger concern is the fact that the USA has spent over a century meddling with and generally fucking up every country to the south of us.

BTW, you never answered my question earlier. If the USA is the one who fucked up their countries with coups, sanctions, interventions and other CIA shenanigans, why is it that you don't think the USA should have any responsibility to the people fleeing the chaos it caused?



Draykorinee said:


> The Dow taking a bit of a hit, there's always a promise of a recession, idiots like Bill Maher actively hope for it. It is an itneresting time, there's been a feeling of 'the rapture' like bust for a while but it keeps bouncing back.


I'm actively hoping for a recession too but not for the same reasons as Maher. The longer they manage to string this along before the downturn happens, the worse it is going to be for everyone not in the ruling elite. Most of the country is already living in a recession. The only reason the talking heads and Trump get to lie about how great the economy is, is because they are using fraudulent numbers to claim unemployment is low and Wall Street is doing great. They don't tell you that how they calculate unemployment numbers is fraudulent to begin with and they don't tell you those high Wall Street numbers have more to do with stock buybacks and other manipulations than it does a healthy economy. 

Trump's tax cuts have played out to executive bonuses and a falsely inflated Wall Street but that money has been spent. Now Trump has been begging the Fed to lower already low interest rates in a desperate attempt to stave off the crash until after the election. Wanting the Fed to lower rates is something he accused Obama of doing when he was trying to get a 2nd term, even though the rates were higher then than they are now. Now he is doing the same thing.

Best case scenario is a collapsed economy during the holiday season. One, it kills any chance of Trump getting a 2nd term. Two, and more importantly, it will damage the chances of status quo Dems running in the primary. Maybe a hard crash might wake up some of the brain dead sheep in the USA and they will nominate someone who actually plans on changing the things that lead to these crashes instead of voting for another run of the mill neo/neo Clintonite.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



deepelemblues said:


> Second amendment 1789: weapons in common possession and use by the people
> Second amendment 2019: weapons in common possession and use by the people


Second amendment 1789: fire one shot, take 60 seconds to reload musket
Second amendment 2019: kill 30 people in 60 seconds with an assault rifle

Deep is right. Nothing has changed at all in the past 230 years.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

It's almost like the trump administration encourages white supremacists... you know... almost...


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

I love America but I'm really having trouble remembering why.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> And you don't think race has anything to do with it?
> 
> Methinks the bigger concern is the fact that the USA has spent over a century meddling with and generally fucking up every country to the south of us.
> 
> BTW, you never answered my question earlier. If the USA is the one who fucked up their countries with coups, sanctions, interventions and other CIA shenanigans, why is it that you don't think the USA should have any responsibility to the people fleeing the chaos it caused?


If you want to make the case that Canadians are just as dangerous as people from the countries south of the border then by all means go ahead. 

I don't think the American people are responsible for what its unaccountable oligarchy does.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> I love America but I'm really having trouble remembering why.





> “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”


Equality. Freedom. Quality of life.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Kabraxal said:


> And if not, you must be willing to stand against the barbs of childish tantrums of the new religion and its zealots.
> 
> It's quite amusing at this point. They don't even try to change up the tactics, just insults and mindless ranting.


Why don't you answer on what basis your opinion comes from rather than hiding it. You brought it up.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> I love America but I'm really having trouble remembering why.


Lot's feel that way, I think it's because our Politicians for the last 20 years have made it hard. Every time it gets better, they make it a little worse. That's my thought anyways.


----------



## PresidentGasman

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

"BuT ItS FaKe"- basically every single Republican

like motherfucker wake up and realize these politicians are paid by these fucking dumb companies to defend their destruction of the enviorment and society


----------



## PresidentGasman

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*

I swear every time Trump is in the news its like his IQ drops 50 points, i honestly still cant believe the majority of conservative Christians worship this man, they would vote Trump in if Jesus Christ himself ran against him as a Democrat.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> If you want to make the case that Canadians are just as dangerous as people from the countries south of the border then by all means go ahead.


I never said anything about Canada but as long as you brought it up, we haven't spent the past century plus fucking up Canada like we have all the countries to the south of us. Maybe Canadians want to stay in Canada because the CIA has not destroyed their country.



> I don't think the American people are responsible for what its unaccountable oligarchy does.


Brainwashed sheep as they may be, the unaccountable oligarchy could not do the things they do if said sheep did not meekly give their consent. You can put the bulk of the blame on the deep state but at a certain point, every other American deserves some share of the blame for allowing these atrocities to continue and not doing shit to stand up to their government and say no more.

Keep people from entering the country illegally; check.
Stop interfering with other country's business; check.

So far, so good. We are on the same page up until this point.

But the fact remains, thousands of these refugees are fleeing their own countries because the USA is responsible for turning them into a hellscape. I could take it a step further and say the USA owns part of the blame for the immigration crisis in Europe because we're the ones leading the way in destroying Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.

If we were not the country fucking up other countries and they did it all on their own, I would agree with you. It is not our responsibility to take care of the entire world's problems. But when we are the leading cause of so many of those problems, yeah, some of the responsibility for fixing them should fall on the shoulders of those who did the most damage.

You'll argue... but it wasn't me that made those decisions. Understood. No single person should take that blame. The American people as a whole though... maybe if they took off the blinders and opened their eyes to the realization that we are the evil empire and the fact that we allowed the government to do this in our name with our money, well...

:draper2


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



yeahbaby! said:


> Equality. Freedom. Quality of life.


Well in this thread people have been holding these passages to the standards of the context when they were written instead of a higher aspirational standard, given that I'm black, I definitely would not have been considered equal when that was written, so that only holds 3/5ths of the meaning to me.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



Miss Sally said:


> Lot's feel that way, I think it's because our Politicians for the last 20 years have made it hard. Every time it gets better, they make it a little worse. That's my thought anyways.


Politicians aren't the problem, they're the symptom, the ignorant people that vote them in are the problem. Moscow Mitch got reelected with a 36% approval rating in 2014, people don't like him but they voted for him anyway, why? Because they know his name? Because they hate Democrats more than they hate him? KY ranks near the bottom in every meaningful economic or quality of life ranking but they let this fucker run America when he's not even helping his own state. That's just one example but shit like that happens in almost every city, county and state election across the country.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161679740354387969
> :mj4 Living in that bubble of privilege.
> 
> "Why don't they just get high-paying jobs?'
> 
> "Why don't the homeless just buy homes?"
> 
> This is what happens when you spend all your time with elitists and haven't actually talked to a real person in years.


So basically he mocking people that has to work two jobs to put the food on their tables or to try to pay off a debt to either credit cards/student loans. Even if you try to get the high-paying jobs with a diploma in some cases you don't get hired because you lack the qualifications or the experience factor. Getting a high-paying job is not as easy to get unless you get lucky or know someone.


----------



## Stephen90

Buffy The Vampire Slayer said:


> So basically he mocking people that has to work two jobs to put the food on their tables or to try to pay off a debt to either credit cards/student loans. Even if you try to get the high-paying jobs with a diploma in some cases you don't get hired because you lack the qualifications or the experience factor. Getting a high-paying job is not as easy to get unless you get lucky or know someone.


I really can't believe anybody takes Shapiro seriously. Especially after the whole BBC incident.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

Stephen90 said:


> I really can't believe anybody takes Shapiro seriously. Especially after the whole BBC incident.


Had to put my two cents into this. :shrug


----------



## Arktik

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



Berzerker's Beard said:


> To be a racist first you have to be retarded. I'm mean literally slow, handicapped. Nobody with a semblance of common sense attributes one's character traits to their skin color. Either that or they ate glue in class.
> 
> So when you accuse someone of being a racist, you're all but insinuating they're retarded _on top_ of being evil.


I think this is one of the biggest self-owns in the history of wrestlingforum.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



PresidentGasman said:


> I swear every time Trump is in the news its like his IQ drops 50 points, i honestly still cant believe the majority of conservative Christians worship this man, they would vote Trump in if Jesus Christ himself ran against him as a Democrat.


Evangelical Christians have started believing that he IS Jesus. It's no longer a joke/meme. A lot of Christians have unironically started calling him Christ .. or at least sincerely believing that he's a warrior of Christ.

There's no depth of depravity a lot of Americans aren't capable of sinking to.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Politicians aren't the problem, they're the symptom, the ignorant people that vote them in are the problem. Moscow Mitch got reelected with a 36% approval rating in 2014, people don't like him but they voted for him anyway, why? Because they know his name? Because they hate Democrats more than they hate him? KY ranks near the bottom in every meaningful economic or quality of life ranking but they let this fucker run America when he's not even helping his own state. That's just one example but shit like that happens in almost every city, county and state election across the country.


Politicians, most of them, are nothing more than lackeys. It's the oligarchs who buy them that are the real problem.

Concerning Mitch... you should look into his last election. The "Democrat" who ran against him ran as a "I'm slightly less shitty" Republican who calls herself a Democrat.

There's an old saying. When a Republican runs against a Republican, the Republican always wins.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162355579135725568
If we lived in a sane world, she would be our next president.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Politicians aren't the problem, they're the symptom, the ignorant people that vote them in are the problem. Moscow Mitch got reelected with a 36% approval rating in 2014, people don't like him but they voted for him anyway, why? Because they know his name? Because they hate Democrats more than they hate him? KY ranks near the bottom in every meaningful economic or quality of life ranking but they let this fucker run America when he's not even helping his own state. That's just one example but shit like that happens in almost every city, county and state election across the country.


That's because people act like crabs, keeping each other down. It's been said over and over again if poor people and people who just want things better got together, we could make change.

We won't because teams, identity politics and everything else. They'll vote against their own interests because that person simply is part of their team. It's moronic.

We're a demoralized people, no matter how many facts you show, the people will never believe it.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162355579135725568
> If we lived in a sane world, she would be our next president.


Yup.

We'll either get Trump.

Bernie "Cuckleberry" Sanders 

Liz "I'm really a minority, really!" Warren 

or

Kamala Harris, honestly for shits and giggles I want her to win.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans*



Reaper said:


> Evangelical Christians have started believing that he IS Jesus. It's no longer a joke/meme. A lot of Christians have unironically started calling him Christ .. or at least sincerely believing that he's a warrior of Christ.
> 
> There's no depth of depravity a lot of Americans aren't capable of sinking to.


----------



## BRITLAND

Miss Sally said:


> Yup.
> 
> We'll either get Trump.
> 
> Bernie "Cuckleberry" Sanders
> 
> Liz "I'm really a minority, really!" Warren
> 
> or
> 
> Kamala Harris, honestly for shits and giggles I want her to win.


If you want shits and giggles (and maybe a little depression), how about a John Delaney/John Hickenlooper ticket? John & John 2020! 

I know it has no chance but just imagine the outcry and rage among the TYT crowd, Trump/Pence might even get a bigger EC win than Reagan/Bush did back in the day :lol


----------



## virus21

> Even Mulan is getting political.
> 
> Liu Yifei, the Chinese-born actress starring in Disney's upcoming live-action "Mulan" remake, waded into the Hong Kong protest controversy on Thursday by expressing support for the city's police, who anti-government demonstrators accuse of using excessive force to quell unrest.
> "I support the Hong Kong police. You can all attack me now. What a shame for Hong Kong," she posted on Weibo, a Twitter-like Chinese social media platform.
> Immediately, people began posting #BoycottMulan on Twitter -- which is banned in China. Hours later, the hashtag was trending in Hong Kong and the United States with 37,700 tweets posted at time of writing. Twitter users accused the actress of supporting police brutality, and called out the fact that she's an American citizen.
> "Liu is a naturalized American citizen. It must be nice. Meanwhile she pisses on people fighting for democracy," one person tweeted.
> Yifei Liu stars as Mulan in the live-action remake of the classic Disney film.
> Yifei Liu stars as Mulan in the live-action remake of the classic Disney film.
> On the flip side, she also received plenty of praise on Weibo, the dominant platform in China. Nearly all the comments on her post echoed support for the Hong Kong police and Beijing.
> "Believe in the government, believe in the Chinese central (government), believe in the country," one comment wrote.
> The protests, which began in June as largely peaceful mass demonstrations against a now-suspended extradition bill, have morphed into something much darker and more violent, with frequent clashes between protesters and police.
> Liu isn't the only Chinese celebrity who's weighed in -- Jackie Chan, martial arts film icon and native Hong Konger, called for peace on Thursday in an interview with China's broadcaster CCTV. He, too, was blasted on Twitter for the nationalist tone of his message -- at one point, he says in Mandarin, "I feel the pride of being a Chinese everywhere. The five-starred red flag is respected everywhere."
> With Hong Kong divided, Beijing tries new tactic to discredit protest movement
> With Hong Kong divided, Beijing tries new tactic to discredit protest movement
> Other public figures, actors and singers like Tony Leung Ka-fai and Daniel Chan have spoken out against protester violence and vandalism. Pop star Denise Ho came out in strong support of the protesters -- she even gave a speech about the protests at a United Nations meeting last month.
> Celebrities outside of Hong Kong and China have also chimed in. Kim Eui Sung, a South Korean actor who starred in the cult 2016 zombie apocalypse film "Train to Busan," expressed support for the protesters on Instagram, writing, "We are watching you, praying for you. #freehongkong." After being bombarded with critical and pro-Beijing comments, he posted another photo -- the infamous Tank Man shot from the Tiananmen Square massacre.
> Sports drinks brand Pocari Sweat was also cheered by protesters and boycotted by the opposition after the company pulled ads from a local broadcaster perceived as pro-Beijing. Even bubble tea has been caught in the mix, with a Taiwanese chain urging solidarity with protesters.
> And with the unrest showing no end in sight, both sides are settling in for the long haul.
> "So disappointed," said one Twitter user of Liu's Weibo post. "Was so excited for Mulan too."


https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/16/asia/china-mulan-actor-protests-intl-hnk-trnd/index.html?utm_term=image&utm_content=2019-08-16T07%3A28%3A05&utm_source=twCNN&utm_medium=social


----------



## Draykorinee

I wouldn't have gone to see it anyway but I sure would love to see it bomb at the box office.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162096224486510592
An entity as soulless as Walmart being indicative of the world's most powerful nation-state's health. Alas...


----------



## Mr.Monkey

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161679740354387969
> :mj4 Living in that bubble of privilege.
> 
> "Why don't they just get high-paying jobs?'
> 
> "Why don't the homeless just buy homes?"
> 
> This is what happens when you spend all your time with elitists and haven't actually talked to a real person in years.


Don't know why but they is the first thing that popped up when i heard that. I mean that argument is one step away from


----------



## Kabraxal

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162096224486510592
> An entity as soulless as Walmart being indicative of the world's most powerful nation-state's health. Alas...


Well, Walmart is the great example of how this country works... a few fat, rich out of teach people "running" things while a bunch of peasants submit themselves to abuse for meagre reimbursement. I guess the fat, rich jackasses would think that's doing great. 

But then, I was never one to measure success or happiness by my bank account so maybe I'm just a jaded fool and don't know any better.


----------



## Hangman

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

How are humans going to save the climate if they can't even move past skin colour?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Ultron said:


> How are humans going to save the climate if they can't even move past skin colour?


We try to kill each other over McDonald's chicken sauce. We are horrible species.


----------



## JasonLives

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



PresidentGasman said:


> "BuT ItS FaKe"- basically every single Republican
> 
> like motherfucker wake up and realize these politicians are paid by these fucking dumb companies to defend their destruction of the enviorment and society


Imagine if the media and people actually had focused on the environment instead of some Russia hoax for almost three years. Imagine putting that much effort into something like the environment, then into something made up and something they know is completely bullshit. 
Maybe they could have made some kind of a difference. But noooo, orange man bad was way more important...

Doesnt matter if its democrats or republicans. The "hope" for the enviornment isnt the actual party or party sympathisers. Its people in general. Not what party someone votes for.

If some countries, or states in the US, could show figures how they "solved" the environment problem, then maybe others could follow. But it doesnt happen. And it doesnt matter which party is in charge. Often because the solutions are populistic.
Ive seen quite a few of that in Sweden, we had a green party in government for 5 years. Hasent happend shit in terms of bettering the environment. Just populistic suggestions that doesnt really do much. Does it help? Sure, but not in any big way. Especially since people are suggesting that we have to turn things around NOW by radical ideas.
No one in actual charge wants to do those radical suggestions.

Everyone is responsible, and everyone has to do their part. However, I do believe that its quite a few people that would go to those radical lengths that some suggest. People need their car, they need their stuff, they need a baby etc etc. 
I do my part in so much as I can. But since I apparently own and drive a car, am a negative to the world and there is nothing I can do about it(unless I sell my car which wont happen).


----------



## The Quintessential Mark

Strike Force said:


> The thought that I'm leaving a world to my five-year-old son that might look like a Mad Max hellscape by the time he's my age is a frightening, humbling, profoundly sad thought, and I have no idea what to do about it. It sucks.


I take it you probably don't believe in a new world being reborn but it's either faith or simply what a large majority believe that we are transitioning to a wasteland as if the earth will actually have survivors.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Blissed Phenomenon said:


> I take it you probably don't believe in a new world being reborn but it's either faith or simply what a large majority believe that we are transitioning to a wasteland as if the earth will actually have survivors.


I...I honestly have no idea what you're attempting to say here. Can you try again? I *think* you're *trying* to say that humans won't survive the upcoming changes to the environment, but my god, what a baffling, labyrinthine sentence.


----------



## The Quintessential Mark

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Strike Force said:


> I...I honestly have no idea what you're attempting to say here. Can you try again? I *think* you're *trying* to say that humans won't survive the upcoming changes to the environment, but my god, what a baffling, labyrinthine sentence.


Well it sounds to me like you would rather be a smart ass it's clear I meant faith=God, Did i really need to throw it out there for you? I don't believe there will be some kind of post apocalyptic world personally but rather a biblical reborn world free of sin.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Blissed Phenomenon said:


> Well it sounds to me like you would rather be a smart ass it's clear I meant faith=God, Did i really need to throw it out there for you? I don't believe there will be some kind of post apocalyptic world personally but rather a biblical reborn world free of sin.


Not trying to be a smartass at all. It's just that...you're not a very good writer, so it was difficult to discern what you were trying to say.

And you're obviously a religious nut, so...


----------



## The Quintessential Mark

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*



Strike Force said:


> Not trying to be a smartass at all. It's just that...you're not a very good writer, so it was difficult to discern what you were trying to say.
> 
> And you're obviously a religious nut, so...


I guess someone can't catch on very well fair enough and I'm not that much of a religious nut just a believer, You said you didn't want your kid seeing a shitty world so i took the liberty of mentioning faith but it's okay.

Have fun being ignorant bye:laugh:


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: Parts of the U.S. have already warmed close to critical 2-degree level*

So this report is actually pretty interesting because apparently, a lot of the southern portions of the United States haven't actually seen an increase in temperature according to the first link, and two states even have experienced some cooling. 

It's hard to really predict what the world will be like in the next 50 years, because Climate Change is still happening in ways Scientists aren't expecting or can make sense of. It all comes down to how we react to it.

And, of course, we already know there is technology out there that is capable of sucking CO2 out of the air. Who knows. 50 years from now, that kind of technology could be widespread and C02 in the air is no longer a concern and just like that Climate Change is no longer an issue. We all have to continue to do our part in helping the planet fight off a very serious problem, but at this point, I think we are past the point where what we do can make any legitimate changes when China and India are pumping out massive amounts of C02. Even if we stopped doing it, it's already too late. That C02 is already in the air. Our best bet is to get the C02 out of the air, and the sooner we can do that, the better.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-rep-matt-shea-endorsed-training-children-to-fight-in-holy-war/



> *Leaked emails show Washington state Rep. Matt Shea endorsed training children to fight in holy war *
> 
> A week before his re-election last year, state Rep. Matt Shea denied that a leaked manifesto he wrote was a road map for a holy war, one that would pit conservative Christian “patriots” against Muslim and Marxist “terrorists.”
> 
> Rather, Shea insisted, the document titled “Biblical Basis for War” contained notes for a scholarly sermon on war in the Old Testament.
> 
> But newly leaked emails, first reported by The Guardian on Wednesday, as well as a video on Shea’s public Facebook page, show the Spokane Valley Republican has had close ties with a group called Team Rugged that trained children, teens and men in their early 20s for religious combat.
> 
> “The entire purpose behind Team Rugged is to provide patriotic and biblical training on war for young men,” a man identified as the group’s leader, Patrick Caughran, wrote in a July 2016 email to Shea. “Everything about it is both politically incorrect and what would be considered shocking truth to most modern christians. There will be scenarios where every participant will have to fight against one of the most barbaric enemies that are invading our country, Muslims terrorists.”
> 
> Caughran added that a Team Rugged event would offer “biblical teaching” based on the works of John Weaver, a racist preacher who has defended slavery, idolized the Confederacy and condemned interracial marriage. The Southern Poverty Law Center says Weaver “has recently become a leading proponent of training Christians for armed battle.”
> 
> The event also would offer weapons training, Caughran told Shea. “Those who attend will learn combatives, the use of a knife in defense, close quarters shooting with rifle and pistol and how to work effectively in teams of 2, 3 and 4.”
> 
> Caughran went on to ask Shea to connect him with “John Jacob Schmidt,” the pseudonym of far-right podcaster Jack Robertson, who once proposed physically attacking liberal demonstrators in a leaked group chat that included Shea.
> 
> Shea replied to Caughran and passed along his request to Robertson.
> 
> Team Rugged’s Facebook page and website were taken down after The Guardian reported about the emails on Wednesday. It’s unclear if the group is still active.
> 
> The emails between Caughran and Shea were contained in a trove of Shea-related documents obtained by The Spokesman-Review through multiple sources. The same materials have been turned over to a team of private investigators hired by the state House of Representatives to determine whether Shea has promoted political violence.
> 
> But the lawmaker’s connection with Team Rugged was hardly a secret: In July 2017, during the annual God and Country Celebration in in Marble, a conservative religious community in northern Stevens County, Shea posted a Facebook Live video that shows him interviewing three Team Rugged members in their early 20s.
> 
> “Tell everybody out there in Patriot Land, what is Team Rugged?” Shea asks in the video, holding a microphone. “What are you guys doing?”
> 
> One member, wearing a green shirt and a camouflage baseball cap, answers: “Team Rugged is basically a school of learning for young men to give them all the foundational learning and skills that they need to be effective in Christian warfare.”
> 
> Shea then muses about the group’s capabilities. “I love the fact that you guys looked like almost an acrobatic special-forces team out there,” he says.
> 
> Records on file with the Washington Secretary of State’s Office show a company called Team Rugged LLC was formed in August 2017, about a year after Caughran emailed Shea.
> 
> The company is registered to Michael Caughran, of Colville, Stevens County, and the board of executors includes Barry Byrd, the pastor of the Marble community. (In 1988, Byrd helped pen a Christian Identity manifesto that referred to Jews as “anti-Christs” and condemned interracial marriage, though he and his wife, Anne, have since tried to distance themselves from racist ideology.)
> 
> The Spokesman-Review found five other companies registered in Washington that have listed the Byrds as executors. The S.A.L.T. Institute LLC, registered in 1996, lists “education” as its purpose. Marble Flats LLC, registered in 2010, exists to “buy and sell real estate.”
> 
> The Byrds also are listed on filings for Old Marble Township LLC, Preparedness LLC and The Marble Commonwealth Trust LLC, which names Stevens County Commissioner Steve Parker as an executor.
> 
> Attempts to reach Parker and Caughran were unsuccessful Wednesday.
> 
> Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, who has urged fellow Republicans to denounce Shea as an extremist, compared Team Rugged to the Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany.
> 
> “Any radicalization of youth in such a manner would be very comparable,” Knezovich said in a text message Wednesday.
> 
> Shea, who rarely speaks to the media, had not publicly responded to the reporting on Team Rugged as of Wednesday evening.
> 
> On Facebook Wednesday, he shared a blog post about Washington’s new Democratic House speaker, writing: “THE CURRENT DIRECTION OF WASHINGTON IS DECIDEDLY ANTI-CHRISTIAN.”


Story about the his manifesto mentioned in the above article.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/414450-fbi-investigating-washington-state-rep-for-manifesto-urging-all-males



> *FBI investigating Washington state rep. for manifesto urging ‘all males' will be killed*
> 
> The FBI says it's investigating a Washington state Republican who distributed a manifesto calling for "war" against enemies of the Christian religion.
> 
> The document, a four-page explanation of how to establish Christian law through armed struggle, calls for the end of same-sex marriage, abortion, and the death of all non-Christian males in the U.S. if religious law is not upheld.
> 
> “If they do not yield — kill all males," the document reads.
> 
> FBI representatives told local NBC affiliate KHQ 6 that it is investigating the document, which was reported to to the bureau by Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, who told the news station that he felt the post was dangerous.
> 
> “The document Mr. Shea wrote is not a Sunday school project or an academic study,” Knezovich added to the Washington Spokesman-Review. “It is a ‘how to’ manual consistent with the ideology and operating philosophy of the Christian Identity/Aryan Nations movement and the Redoubt movement of the 1990s.”
> 
> Shea defended the document in a Facebook Live post this week, calling it part of a "sermon" and taken out of context as a call for violence.
> 
> “First of all, it was a summary of a series of sermons on biblical war in the Old Testament as part of a larger discussion on the history of warfare,” he said on Wednesday.
> 
> “This document, in and of itself, was not a secret. I’ve actually talked about portions of this document publicly.”
> 
> Shea, who is running for reelection, has lost at least one campaign donor over the controversy. A spokeswoman for the Northwest Credit Union Association told Spokane Public Radio that the group had requested the return of a $1,000 donation to Shea's campaign.
> 
> “His beliefs do not reflect the views and values of our organization, member credit unions or customers,” the spokeswoman said.


----------



## MrMister

Mr.Monkey said:


> Don't know why but they is the first thing that popped up when i heard that. I mean that argument is one step away from


That video killed me. :lol

thot savior bow down to the queen


----------



## cewfa85

This Steve King guy is really sticking in my craw lately. He is for banning abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, so one of his constituents in a town hall asked him if that should apply to a 10 year old girl who was raped by her uncle that got pregnant. King said that he hadn't heard of a case that extreme and that he would have to think about it. What kind of person has to think about it? The answer is obvious. You can say a lot of things about the Democratic party, but I can't think of any of them who are as morally bankrupt, sick, weirdos as some of the people in the Republican party.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

cewfa85 said:


> This Steve King guy is really sticking in my craw lately. He is for banning abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, so one of his constituents in a town hall asked him if that should apply to a 10 year old girl who was raped by her uncle that got pregnant. King said that he hadn't heard of a case that extreme and that he would have to think about it. What kind of person has to think about it? The answer is obvious. You can say a lot of things about the Democratic party, but I can't think of any of them who are as morally bankrupt, sick, weirdos as some of the people in the Republican party.


He said this earlier this week



> "What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that?" he said at the event in Urbandale, Iowa.
> 
> "Considering all the wars and all the rapes and pillages taken place and whatever happened to culture after society? I know I can't certify that I'm not a part of a product of that."
> 
> The Kiron Republican was defending his position of not allowing exceptions for rape and incest in the anti-abortion legislation he tried to pass in Congress. Republican leadership had prevented the bills he sponsored on banning abortions from advancing through the House, despite GOP support for the measures, King said.
> 
> Just because a conception happened in bad circumstances doesn't mean the result isn't a person, argued King, who is Catholic. Other members of Congress who co-sponsored the legislation agreed with him, he said.
> 
> "I’ve got 174 people who say they don’t want exceptions for rape and incest because they understand it is not the baby’s fault, to abort the baby, because of the sin of the father, and maybe sometimes the sin of the mother too," he said. "And so I refused to do that."


Yes Steve, humans as a species would have still existed without rape and incest.


----------



## virus21

*White supremacy-fuelled killings to be classed as domestic terrorism under new law proposed in New York*



> Amid a national debate about racism, extremism and mass shootings, governor Andrew Cuomo proposed to make New York the first state to classify “hate-fuelled” killings as domestic terrorism on Thursday.
> 
> Democrat Mr Cuomo unveiled the proposal almost two weeks after the back-to-back massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, prompted all-too-familiar cries for action from both political parties.
> 
> Describing the need to address the “new violent epidemic” of “hate-fuelled, American-on-American terrorism,” Mr Cuomo called for raising the penalties for violence motivated by race, gender, sexual orientation or other protected classes by making them punishable by up to life in prison without parole.
> 
> “Today, our people are three times more likely to suffer a terrorist attack launched by an American than one launched by a foreigner,” he said. “Now this is not just repulsive. This is not just immoral. This is not just anti-American. It is illegal.
> 
> "And we must confront it by enacting a new law to fit the crime.”
> 
> Ohio shooting: Gunman kills nine after opening fire outside bar
> Show all 21
> While the governor’s office has not shared any bill language, it said mass casualties would be defined as any death of at least one person and the attempted murder of at least two more.
> 
> Lawmakers have wrestled with how to define and prosecute domestic terrorism for years.
> 
> There is no federal crime of domestic terrorism. While congress passed a law after the 9/11 attacks defining domestic terrorism as violent acts intended to intimidate civilians or the government, that law did not create an accompanying federal offence, such as exists for international terrorism.
> 
> Acts of domestic terrorism have instead been prosecuted under different charges, such as attempting to “destroy a building in interstate commerce”.
> 
> Read more
> 
> FBI opens ‘domestic terrorism’ investigation into festival shooting
> 
> Trump blames media for causing 'anger and rage' after El Paso attack
> 
> Trump demands immigration reform in wake of domestic terror attack
> Dozens of states, including New York, have enacted state-level laws defining terrorism. Some, including Georgia and Vermont, explicitly mention domestic terrorism.
> 
> But those laws, like the federal one, largely measure terrorism as an attempt to coerce or destabilise the public or the government.
> 
> New York’s new law, by contrast, would specify that domestic terrorism included acts of mass violence against people for their identities.
> 
> “White supremacists, anti-Semites, anti-LGBTQ, white nationalists: these are Americans committing mass hate crimes against other Americans,” Mr Cuomo said. “And it should be recognised for what it is: domestic terrorism.”
> 
> The governor also called on congress to enact a new federal domestic terrorism law. Senator Martha McSally introduced a bill on Wednesday to do that.
> 
> Read more
> 
> Prosecutors to seek death penalty for El Paso shooter
> Brooklyn congressman Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat who also spoke at the event at the New York City Bar Association, joined the call for federal action. “Rome is burning right now, and yet Donald Trump and his co-conspirators in the Republican Party are fiddling around,” he said.
> 
> Mr Cuomo’s proposal appears well positioned to win support in the state legislature, which this year fell under Democratic control for the first time in nearly a decade.
> 
> While leaders of both the state Senate and Assembly did not explicitly say that they would back the bill, in statements they said they shared Mr Cuomo’s goal of ensuring safety and condemning hate.
> 
> Mary McCord, a former top national security official in the justice department, said states’ existing domestic terrorism laws have not proved very effective, in part because they do little to address crime prevention.
> 
> “They kind of just sit there unused, because they don’t necessarily have the same experience in investigating and prosecuting terrorism cases” as federal authorities, she said. “I think all states should have domestic terrorism statutes, it’s a good thing for them to have, but it hasn’t really moved the ball significantly.”
> 
> 
> Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent Minds
> Brian Michael Jenkins, a senior researcher at the RAND Corporation think tank, said that murder typically already carries the maximum penalties, whatever the motivation.
> 
> “A mass murderer with a manifesto is still a mass murderer,” Jenkins said.
> 
> Supporters of Mr Cuomo’s proposal said that singling out political motivation was, in part, the point.
> 
> Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations, appeared at Thursday’s speech alongside Mr Cuomo. He urged the audience to remember that “words are important”.
> 
> “If you don’t name it, you can’t fight it," he said.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/domestic-terrorism-us-mass-killings-new-york-governor-andrew-cuomo-el-paso-dayton-shootings-a9063356.html


----------



## Crona

*Re: White supremacy-fuelled killings to be classed as domestic terrorism under new law proposed in New York*

Good. Call them what they are.


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: White supremacy-fuelled killings to be classed as domestic terrorism under new law proposed in New York*

'hate-fuelled' is a little vague.. Most acts of mass murder (or indeed murder in general) are hardly committed with hugs and good intentions.


----------



## PresidentGasman

*Re: White supremacy-fuelled killings to be classed as domestic terrorism under new law proposed in New York*

Agree with this move, any Terrorism whatever its motivated by whether its by politics or religion or its racially motivated should all be called out equally, getting mad over menial shit and going out and killing people because there different is disgusting and one of the reasons I still loosely support the death penalty.


----------



## Blisstory

*Re: White supremacy-fuelled killings to be classed as domestic terrorism under new law proposed in New York*

Im totally ok with that as long as killing by other races towards a differing race are also aligned as the same. Racism has no color. Lets stop singling out whites.


----------



## PresidentGasman

*Re: White supremacy-fuelled killings to be classed as domestic terrorism under new law proposed in New York*



Blisstory said:


> Im totally ok with that as long as killing by other races towards a differing race are also aligned as the same. Racism has no color. Lets stop singling out whites.


I agree with this, whites attacking blacks,blacks attacking whites,asians attacking whites,etc. all need to be called out equally as racism, obsessing with one race over another is gonna outrage people and radicalize more potential losers like the El Paso Shooter.


----------



## Cowabunga

*Re: White supremacy-fuelled killings to be classed as domestic terrorism under new law proposed in New York*

I wonder what's behind the rise of extremists in USA this decade?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: White supremacy-fuelled killings to be classed as domestic terrorism under new law proposed in New York*

Kind of a pointless law since shooting a bunch of people will already get you life in prison and these incel shooters aren't really a part of an organization or anything, they're just trying to get some notoriety and/or let out their aggression.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162141203778830336
When Democrats have complete power.

There's no escaping it thanks to demographic trends which will guarantee endless Democrat control. This will eventually be the entire country.


----------



## virus21

2 Ton 21 said:


> He said this earlier this week
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Steve, humans as a species would have still existed without rape and incest.


??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????










WHAT FUCK DID I JUST READ!?



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162141203778830336
> When Democrats have complete power.
> 
> There's no escaping it. This will eventually be the entire country.


Nah, just the big cities will be that. Welcome to Mega City One


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: White supremacy-fuelled killings to be classed as domestic terrorism under new law proposed in New York*

Its not just white supremacy ones is it though? Title seems misleading, looks like any 'hate-filled' killing will do.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> When Democrats have complete power.
> 
> There's no escaping it thanks to demographic trends which will guarantee endless Democrat control. This will eventually be the entire country.


A dumb post from a partisan hack.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162096224486510592
> An entity as soulless as Walmart being indicative of the world's most powerful nation-state's health. Alas...





Kabraxal said:


> Well, Walmart is the great example of how this country works... a few fat, rich out of teach people "running" things while a bunch of peasants submit themselves to abuse for meagre reimbursement. I guess the fat, rich jackasses would think that's doing great.
> 
> But then, I was never one to measure success or happiness by my bank account so maybe I'm just a jaded fool and don't know any better.


Walmart used to be made in America for America, it was a way to keep jobs/money in the States. You work there, you spend your money buying decently made products for a good price. It was very successful.

Once the visionary died it became something else. The idea behind it is solid, keeping money and jobs within the States helps grow the economy.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> A dumb post from a partisan hack.


Have you ever even been to my state? :lol I've lived within 10 minutes of all three of these major cities. I've spent a LOT of time in each. You know less than nothing about this topic. Cease speaking as if your opinion has any value. It does not.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162141203778830336
> When Democrats have complete power.
> 
> There's no escaping it thanks to demographic trends which will guarantee endless Democrat control. This will eventually be the entire country.


So... what you're saying is that Democrats should stop implementing right wing Republican policies. 

Whether you realize it or not.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Cease speaking as if your opinion has any value. It does not.


Enough value that you felt the need to reply. You're a partisan hack job poster with hacky views, the only reason you're worth quoting is for the inane crap that you type.


----------



## CamillePunk

Considering all of the likes and rep I get from Dray, it makes me wonder if I'm really an inane poster or I just touched a nerve with something lately? :lol Must be weird to so feverishly support a political party in another country that you defend any slight against them. Can't relate to caring so much about another country's affairs, must be a minor power thing.  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163152957271093248


----------



## deepelemblues

What is really living in an elitist bubble is criticizing a company that provides an enormous variety of products at a cheap price over a widespread geographic area, so the proles can afford to live a highly convenient and consumerist lifestyle. That is what big box stores do, cry moar about the proles getting to enjoy a lifestyle that even the rich and powerful were mostly unable to access for most of human history


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Considering all of the likes and rep I get from Dray, it makes me wonder if I'm really an inane poster or I just touched a nerve with something lately? :lol Must be weird to so feverishly support a political party in another country that you defend any slight against them. Can't relate to caring so much about another country's affairs, must be a minor power thing.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163152957271093248


I don't support either of your parties, I've made it abundantly clear many times. When you're bipartisan, which is rare, and anti-war you get a like from me, when you're a partisan hack which is often you'll get called it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 

Is that minor power thing supposed to be a dig? We're not only a minor power but we're about to become an even smaller one and its laughable.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> What is really living in an elitist bubble is criticizing a company that provides an enormous variety of products at a cheap price over a widespread geographic area, so the proles can afford to live a highly convenient and consumerist lifestyle. That is what big box stores do, cry moar about the proles getting to enjoy a lifestyle that even the rich and powerful were mostly unable to access for most of human history


I shop at target. Not much higher in price but way fewer freaks.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> I shop at target. Not much higher in price but way fewer freaks.


I can get my 24 fluid ounce bottle of name-brand authentic fake-Italian pasta sauce for 1.84 at Wal-Mart

1.86 at Target

AND THAT'S MY TWO CENTS ON THE MATTER *ba-dum tish*


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-08-20-19/h_7b57a7f94aafaddf52a5479b32fdefa1



> *Kamala Harris couldn't recapture lightning in the second debates*
> 
> Kamala Harris was off and running after the June debates. She hit 17% in our poll and 20% in Quinnipiac University's poll following her performance on the debate stage in Miami.
> 
> *Now in our latest polls, Quinnipiac and we have her at 7% and 5% respectively.*
> 
> The second debate in Detroit didn't cause most of Harris' drop. She was already down to 12% in a late July poll by Quinnipiac.
> 
> Still, the California senator seemed to be holding onto some of her first debate bounce coming into the CNN debates. I wrote at the time "why Kamala Harris needs another strong debate." That didn't happen.
> 
> Harris is now considerably weaker across the board. She dropped by over 10 points with whites and nonwhites. She declined by 9 points or more with those under the age of 50 as well those aged 50 and older.
> 
> Her biggest drop might have been among liberals. She went from 24% in late June to only 4% now.
> 
> Harris' decline is seen in other questions too. When asked which candidates they'd like to hear more about, 30% said Harris in late June. That was more than any other candidate. Now, only 18% say they want to hear more about Harris. That's slightly behind Elizabeth Warren, who clocked in at 20%.
> 
> For now, the polling puts Harris not in the first or even second tier. She's in a third tier with Pete Buttigieg.


----------



## Draykorinee

Beautiful, these establishment democrat assholes being crushed will be sweet music to my ears. The joke that is the Democrat party needs a complete overhaul.


----------



## Tater

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-08-20-19/h_7b57a7f94aafaddf52a5479b32fdefa1


It's starting to look like the DNC might screw Tulsi out of the next round of debates by only using their rigged polls to choose who is allowed in when she is polling high enough in the non DNC sanctioned polls and has blown away the 130k unique donor mark. Last I saw she was already past 160k. Meanwhile, the so called official polls have Tom Steyer polling high enough to make the debates when most people don't even know who the fuck he is. He's a jackass billionaire who bought his way in. Typical DNC fuckery.

Still, even if they screw Tulsi out of her chance to continue in the primary, I still consider it a win if she has taken Kamala out of the race because I consider Kamala getting the nomination to be the worst case scenario. Even worse than Biden.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163817260223365121
It's a big club and you ain't in it.


----------



## CHAMPIONSHIPS

Tulsi Gabbard is simply not going to be president in 2020. She has ZERO chance of winning. She is the Samoa Joe of the Democratic primary. She's said some shitty shit about refugees anyway so I find it funny progressives like her.

Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson also have ZERO chance to win but at least they interesting things to the debates. Tulsi doesn't add anything that Bernie or Warren won't. Focusing on her is a waste of time


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163961884225277954
if you wanna be my lover
you gotta sell me greenland


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163961884225277954
> if you wanna be my lover
> you gotta sell me greenland


She thought :trump wanted to buy _Denmark_ and was all like ...FINALLY! THANK GOD SOMEONE WANTS TO TAKE US OFF OUR OWN HANDS. WE THOUGHT THIS GLORIOUS DAY WOULD NEVER COME

Then she found out it was _Greenland_ and that's when shit went sideways


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163879545935560705
Nothing to see here. There is not a crash coming and the banks are not stealing as much money as they can before demanding another taxpayer bailout when it happens. They certainly are not being aided by their lackeys in the government.

Heads, they win. Tails, we lose.


----------



## deepelemblues

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163879545935560705
> Nothing to see here. There is not a crash coming and the banks are not stealing as much money as they can before demanding another taxpayer bailout when it happens. They certainly are not being aided by their lackeys in the government.
> 
> Heads, they win. Tails, we lose.


Well that's why :trump wants to buy Greenland. He knows all about the literal mountains of gold there. Buying Denmark is the final step of his super double secret plan to bring back the gold standard. But now Denmark has gotten wise to this massif of pure gold that has been hidden from the world until now. DANISH WORLD HEGEMONY will finally come to pass


----------



## goldbergstraps97

Draykorinee said:


> Beautiful, these establishment democrat assholes being crushed will be sweet music to my ears. The joke that is the Democrat party needs a complete overhaul.


Demoncrats are evil.


----------



## Draykorinee

goldbergstraps97 said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beautiful, these establishment democrat assholes being crushed will be sweet music to my ears. The joke that is the Democrat party needs a complete overhaul.
> 
> 
> 
> Demoncrats are evil.
Click to expand...

So are republicans.


----------



## Genking48

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163961884225277954
> if you wanna be my lover
> you gotta sell me greenland


lel. All other places they're like "You're not welcome Trump, stay away" and he gives no fuck and comes over anyway.

Tell him "No, we don't wanna do business" and he refuses to come over.

Got 'em 

:HBK


----------



## Draykorinee

He's a petty guy, we all know that, to some its a positive though.

This was a visit that was set up with the Queen and the first state visit since Clinton and he threw his toys out of the pram like a little baby.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

goldbergstraps97 said:


> Demoncrats are evil.





Draykorinee said:


> So are republicans.


These two posts basically sum up all 404 pages of debate on this thread. 

:kobelol


----------



## Tater

Hoolahoop33 said:


> These two posts basically sum up all 404 pages of debate on this thread.
> 
> :kobelol


Taken together, it's a positive. Dems are bad and so are Reps. The more Americans figure that out, the better off we will all be.


----------



## Draykorinee

Hoolahoop33 said:


> These two posts basically sum up all 404 pages of debate on this thread.
> 
> :kobelol


Yeah, it would be better if we all just agreed they're both not helping us, instead of all the partisan hacks who only focus on the dems are evil or the republicans are nazis while trying to praise the other for stupid things. Idiots try to suggest I support the Dems when there is zero evidence for that, I'd support a democrat like Bernie Sanders but not the party, who somehow make the Republican party look competent.


----------



## deepelemblues

The president is exactly right to cancel the state visit to Denmark after the disrespectful comments of the Danish Prime Minister

That kind of shit can't be acceptable. There should be consequences for it

And if some other head of state wanted to do the same thing to :trump after he went on some rambling mean spirited twitter rant about them or their country or whatever, that would be perfectly appropriate as well. Far too often there are no consequences for statesmen and -women being little shits in their public comments concerning foreign relations

The worst offender by far is China, but really that's more of a let them grab all the rope they are hanging themselves with. Nobody but Russia likes China now and not even Russia trusts China, nobody trusts them now. That's what happens when you act like an asshole like they have been in the South and East China Seas and make hostile demeaning supercilious statements like the Red government does about 27 times a day


----------



## Draykorinee

You only have to see above ^ for the exact example we're talking about when it comes to partisan hackery. He cancelled a state visit because Denmark didn't want to discuss selling Greenland, a country they don't even own.

He acted like a petulant child and everyone should either call him out on it or ignore it, not defend him.

This is the same guy who sucked off Boris Johnson even though Boris is on record as routinely mocking him with such delights as 



> The only reason I wouldn't visit some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> You only have to see above ^ for the exact example we're talking about when it comes to partisan hackery. He cancelled a state visit because Denmark didn't want to discuss selling Greenland, a country they don't even own.
> 
> He acted like a petulant child and everyone should either call him out on it or ignore it, not defend him.


You only have to see above to see the hypocrisy and juvenile ad hominem contrivances that have made anything utter garbage lately 

She snubbed him and was disrespectful in her comments. Denmark certainly does own Greenland, Greenland is not an independent sovereign nation. They have internal autonomy so they would have to agree to such a sale - but so would Denmark. But that autonomy derives from Denmark's agreement granting it. If Denmark wanted to, it could withdraw that agreement which would certainly cause a political crisis and Denmark never would do it, but it could

Your response actually _is _ pure partisan hackery, Bad Orange Man did it so it's indefensible by default. :tripsscust outta here with that nonsense. She insulted him and the United States. Insults in foreign relations should be met with consequences, if the insulted has any kind of self respect at all

You have an odd definition of partisan hackery, when I said the Bad Orange Man should face the same consequences for being insulting in his remarks about other countries. The same standard for everyone, that is so partisan :heyman6 I would say you're better than this but the times when you are are increasingly rare


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> You only have to see above to see the hypocrisy and juvenile ad hominem contrivances that have made anything utter garbage lately
> 
> She snubbed him and was disrespectful in her comments.


She didn't snub him, she said no we're not selling and its not up for discussion. Snubbing means ignoring him or acting disdainfully.

Can you please share these insults that you're so offended by, all I can find is this 



> "Greenland is not for sale... Greenland belongs to Greenland,” she told reporters Sunday, calling the suggestion “an absurd discussion."
> 
> “Thankfully, the time where you buy and sell other countries and populations is over. Let’s leave it there. Jokes aside, we will of course love to have an even closer strategic relationship with the United States.”





> Your response actually _is _ pure partisan hackery, Bad Orange Man did it so it's indefensible by default. :tripsscust outta here with that nonsense. She insulted him and the United States. Insults in foreign relations should be met with consequences, if the insulted has any kind of self respect at all
> 
> You have an odd definition of partisan hackery, when I said the Bad Orange Man should face the same consequences for being insulting in his remarks about other countries. The same standard for everyone, that is so partisan :heyman6 I would say you're better than this but the times when you are are increasingly rare


I've just pent the last 2 pages openly saying I hate the democrats and they're evil, so how on earth can I be a partisan hack because I mock Trump, do you even think before you type? I hate both, I mock Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Bootyjudge etc, you don't know what words mean.

Saying you think Trump should also face the consequences is being consistent, it does not stop you being a Partisan hack. You're basically 'Orange man good' every time he does something no matter how obvious wrong it is.

You're literally the only one saying Denmark were offensive and disrespectful, even Faux news aren't pushing that narrative. Trump was disrespectful, posting memes with Trump tower in Greenland and pushing a narrative that he can just waltz in and offer money for Greenland.


----------



## Tater

Trump openly admits that he cancelled the Denmark visit because they wouldn't sell him Greenland. It takes some serious pretzel twisting to claim otherwise when the man himself does not deny it.


----------



## Genking48

I say let's trade. We'll give up Greenland for a couple of states :bosstrips

We don't want shit states, give us some good ones.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump and Mrs Denmark are negotiating. He says maybe we wanna buy it, she says it's not for sale, he says maybe we won't come over then, she says her parents aren't home, we come over and make the deal and Greenland becomes ours. Denmark gets Puerto Rico in exchange, which we're fine with and would've given them for free (4d chess). The inhabitants of Greenland get a slice of the profits we make just like Alaskans do.


----------



## Stephen90

Genking48 said:


> I say let's trade. We'll give up Greenland for a couple of states :bosstrips
> 
> We don't want shit states, give us some good ones.


How does Mississippi,Alabama,West Virginia and Alaska sound?


----------



## Draykorinee

Good luck getting the greenlanders to give up their social programs. 

Tbh, there's an easy out now, just tell trump no and he'll cry off.


----------



## Tater

Genking48 said:


> I say let's trade. We'll give up Greenland for a couple of states :bosstrips
> 
> We don't want shit states, give us some good ones.





Stephen90 said:


> How does Mississippi,Alabama,West Virginia and Alaska sound?


Just give them the entire South and call it a day.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump says he didn't like her calling the idea absurd. What a fucking snowflake. Is that the insult? Is that why he threw his dummy out?

Pathetic.


----------



## deepelemblues

Every Democrat presidential candidate asked to condemn antifa refused to do so

Except Jumpin Joe, YANG GANG and Assad's girlfriend

Jumpin Joe and YANG GANG didn't specifically condemn antifa they gave a boilerplate answer about opposing all hate but that's better than refusing to answer like most of them did, or claiming they didn't know what antifa was, or outright saying No like Marianne the crazy lady

Only Assad's best American girl tulsi unequivocally condemned antifa

Second look at assad's moll? :maury no, but I respect her for not being a coward on the question


----------



## Draykorinee

I dunno what's so hard, do you condemn Antifa? 

Yes, anyone who uses violence for political aims should be condemned.

Simple, but the Democrats are trying hard to not give trump a proper run for his money.


----------



## Miss Sally

Yang I doubt is a fan of them but he's been trying not to rock the boat at all. 

Joe I'm a bit surprised at. 

Tulsi isn't a coward that's why. Can't say that for the rest of them.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://theweek.com/speedreads/860276/trump-chosen



> Trump: 'I am the chosen one'
> 
> So that just happened.
> 
> Yes, President Trump, when asked about his ongoing trade war with China, deemed himself "the chosen one" when talking with reporters outside the White House on Wednesday. As Trump put it, when it comes to dealing with China's trade practices, "somebody had to do it." He then added "I am the chosen one" as he looked up to the sky.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164217774564159488


> The odd comment comes just after Trump compared himself to some kind of deity in a Wednesday morning tweet. He seemed to be watching Wayne Allyn Root's show on the conservative network Newsmax, and tweeted a quote from Root saying that "the Jewish people in Israel love [Trump] like he's the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God." And the day before, Trump accused "any Jewish people that votes for a Democrat" of having "either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty." Kathryn Krawczyk


Even if you did not want Donald Trump to win the presidency, if you are honest you have to admit that this is vastly more superficially entertaining, if nothing else, than a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency. (Granted, that is not a particularly tremendous endorsement considering that "HRC" was such a mind-numbingly calculated-to-the-finest-degree nominee. But, y'know, in terms of realistic final scenarios, it is ultimately a binary choice.)


----------



## bradatar

To enter this thread or not...


Nah, I’ll re-visit soon when whatever poor fool the Dems gets nominated after they’re done cannablizing one another. Which stand we gonna use this run? GRR RACISM AND RUSSIA again? Maybe a little socialism? Either way I’ll be entertained to see a party so fucked up they can’t take down Donald fucking Trump due to fighting over who can be pissed off more. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CamillePunk

DesolationRow said:


> http://theweek.com/speedreads/860276/trump-chosen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164217774564159488
> 
> 
> Even if you did not want Donald Trump to win the presidency, if you are honest you have to admit that this is vastly more superficially entertaining, if nothing else, than a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency. (Granted, that is not a particularly tremendous endorsement considering that "HRC" was such a mind-numbingly calculated-to-the-finest-degree nominee. But, y'know, in terms of realistic final scenarios, it is ultimately a binary choice.)


Trump's been talking about someone having to get tough on China since the 80s, when people were begging him to run for president. :lol It's clear to me that he really didn't want to run for president even in 2016 but after 30 years of this shit he felt like he had no choice. The reluctant "chosen one". :lol Love it.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164231672516104197
Of course, when Trump talks about ending it here the left/neoliberals screech at him and call him a racist because drastically changing demographics is how the Democrats plan to win the whole ball game.


----------



## DesolationRow

That is true about Trump arguing on behalf of getting tough on China since the 1980s, @CamillePunk;. :lol

http://www.npr.org/2019/08/21/75301...-a-battleground-state-ahead-of-2020-elections



> Texas Emerges As A Battleground State Ahead Of 2020 Elections
> 
> 4:03
> DOWNLOAD
> TRANSCRIPT
> August 21, 20195:15 AM ET
> Heard on Morning Edition
> Jessica Taylor at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., July 25, 2018. (photo by Allison Shelley) (Square)
> JESSICA TAYLOR
> 
> Twitter
> 
> Republican retirements from the House have given Democrats hope of expanding their gains next year in Texas, where changing demographics in suburbs have reshaped the electorate in some districts.
> 
> DAVID GREENE, HOST:
> 
> The state of Texas may be emerging as a battleground heading into the 2020 campaign. Democrats flipped two Texas House seats last November. Four Texas Republicans have recently said they are retiring next year. And NPR's Jessica Taylor travelled to one of their districts.
> 
> JESSICA TAYLOR, BYLINE: On a steamy August evening, about 60 young adults are packed into a side room of a bubble tea cafe in the Houston suburbs for the inaugural meeting of the Fort Bend County Young Democrats.
> 
> ROCKY SALIGRAM: It took us a while to get here. This was a long time coming. We're so glad for the efforts put by this team and everyone in this room - that we were able to get this club started.
> 
> (APPLAUSE)
> 
> TAYLOR: That's the group's 24-year-old president, Rocky Saligram. This gathering reflects Texas' rapidly diversifying suburbs where growth isn't just centered around Hispanics but, increasingly, Asian Americans, like Saligram.
> 
> Thirty-year-old Ali Hasanali says even in the last decade, it was laughable that Democrats could be competitive here.
> 
> ALI HASANALI: My first Democratic Party meeting, there was maybe 15 of us. I was probably the youngest person there by three decades. I was the only Asian American in the room. We didn't have enough people to run for office, let alone participate in getting people out to vote. And...
> 
> TAYLOR: Now, things are different. Last year, KP George became not only the first Democrat in nearly 25 years to win the top office in the county, but he's the first minority ever to do so. George says there's been a backlash since 2016.
> 
> KP GEORGE: President Trump coming into office, it influenced a lot of people because they all of a sudden realize, being an immigrant, your existence is the most important thing.
> 
> TAYLOR: When Cynthia Ginyard took over the Fort Bend County Democratic Party in spring of 2016, she knew the area was ripe for Democrats. They just had to reach out.
> 
> CYNTHIA GINYARD: We are every color, race, creed, religion. We make up the Democratic Party, but all of them were not always a part of or welcomed or felt welcomed to come and join.
> 
> TAYLOR: Their big target now is the 22nd Congressional District. It went for Mitt Romney by 25 points in 2012. But in 2016, Trump only carried it by eight points. A decade ago, it was about two-thirds white. Now, it's a majority minority district with large Latino, Asian and black populations.
> 
> And last month, Republican Congressman Pete Olson announced he was retiring. Former foreign service officer Sri Preston Kulkarni came within five points of ousting Olson last year.
> 
> A key part of his strategy was reaching out to immigrants - often in their native languages - after realizing that almost three-quarters of those voters had never been contacted by a Democrat or a Republican.
> 
> SRI PRESTON KULKARNI: It's a very heavily immigrant community; 1 out of every 4 people here is foreign-born.
> 
> TAYLOR: Kulkarni himself personifies the changing face of Texas. His father was an Indian immigrant. His mother is actually a descendant of Sam Houston, the first president of the Republic of Texas.
> 
> Kulkarni is running again in 2020. And if elected, Kulkarni would not only be the first Asian American to represent Texas, he'd be the first Hindu, too.
> 
> KULKARNI: The stereotype that Texans only look one way, they only have one religion, they only talk one way - like, that's from 20 or 30 years ago. Look around you. Look around at Fort Bend. Look around Houston. Look around at this state.
> 
> TAYLOR: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee opened an office in Texas targeting at least six GOP seats. Republican strategist Brian Walsh, a former aide to Texas Senator John Cornyn, is worried about diversifying areas like the 22nd district.
> 
> BRIAN WALSH: Texas exemplifies sort of a larger problem and conversation the Republican Party needs to have within itself, not just looking ahead to 2020 but beyond as well.
> 
> TAYLOR: Walsh and other Republicans are skeptical that would mean Texas flipping at the presidential level in 2020. But if they lose more congressional seats in Texas, the path back to a House majority gets even smaller. Jessica Taylor, NPR News, Sugar Land, Texas.
> 
> Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
> 
> NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.


Texas will probably not be blue in 2020 (Beto O'Rourke may be on the Democrats' ticket in order to take her home) but she is already looking at herself in the mirror, quickly turning garnet.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Warning: *Intense* Levels of Cringe


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> Trump's been talking about someone having to get tough on China since the 80s, when people were begging him to run for president. :lol It's clear to me that he really didn't want to run for president even in 2016 but after 30 years of this shit he felt like he had no choice. The reluctant "chosen one". :lol Love it.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164231672516104197
> Of course, when Trump talks about ending it here the left/neoliberals screech at him and call him a racist because drastically changing demographics is how the Democrats plan to win the whole ball game.


Demographic's are not destiny but as PaleoConservatism and White Identity Politics become the new norm for present term GOP then Birthright citizens,legal immigrants and every type of poc will default mostly to Democratic voters by process of exclusion from the other party for the next few decades until another political realignment.


----------



## CamillePunk

Nah they were voting overwhelmingly Democrat long before conservatives started getting wise to it. :lol Nice try though. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164553547960246272
Sad to see. Old age comes for us all. Some more harshly and quickly than others.


----------



## goldbergstraps97

Draykorinee said:


> So are republicans.


Maybe so. The war in the Middle East is very much evil and wrong, which was pushed and pursued by both parties.

But I would say judging from the actions, and belief of the left (the pursuit of hedonism, aborticide, and infanticide, euthanasia and overall denial of God, vaccines) that they are indeed more so.


----------



## Tater

goldbergstraps97 said:


> Maybe so. The war in the Middle East is very much evil and wrong, which was pushed and pursued by both parties.
> 
> But I would say judging from the actions, and belief of the left (the pursuit of hedonism, aborticide, and infanticide, euthanasia and *overall denial of God, vaccines*) that they are indeed more so.


Wait, is "the left" in denial of vaccines or are they evil for using vaccines? Cause that is funny either way you look at it.

You are either pro vaccine, which is funny because vaccines come from science and god is fantasy. Or you are an anti-vaxxer because evil "leftists" are giving our poor children autism with their demon drugs.

I just want to be clear what I am :lmao at here.


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> Nah they were voting overwhelmingly Democrat long before conservatives started getting wise to it. :lol Nice try though.


As recently as 2004 the GOP won the Majority Latino state of New Mexico in the Presidential election. 48% of Vietnamese American's in 2008 were registered Republicans by 2016 that was down to 23%. In 2002 the party registration for Cuban Americans was 64% GOP 22%Dem,in 2013 it was 47% GOP and 44% and that trend will continue to grow with younger Cubans. You can go down the line with people of all different national origins from Latin America,Middle East,Asia etc who vote Democrat at higher % then they did 10-20-30 years ago as the Republican's cloaked themselves into the party of white identity politics and grievance snowflakes like Trump,Tucker and Pat Buchanan.


----------



## DesolationRow

It should be remembered that George W. Bush was the most popular Republican president with Hispanics for a bevy of reasons, but even he was only able to reach 43% U.S.-wide in 2004 coming off of September 11 three years earlier. Vietnamese- and Cuban-Americans were hugely Republican-voting a generation ago mainly because those groups tended to equate economic policies promoted by Democrats as being too similar to the nation-states from which they had fled. 

The Cold War against the Soviet Union is a distant memory for many today (if that), and the times of Cuban-Americans feeling as though they owed it to their forebears to vote Republican to stick it to the Castro regime in Havana are well in the rear-view mirror. 

Guillermo Grenier surveyed this not long ago and noted that the generational gulf between people who had fled Cuba by 1980 and those who are younger represents "a stark, almost seismic division." 

It also has to be remembered that historically Latinos are fairly dramatic under-performers in the voter-registration rankings among groups, and only in the last generation or so has the younger set begun to fully flower as being more politically active, so the sample sizes with some of these calculations from the past have to always be placed in context. 

For instance: U.S.-wide, Hispanics accounted for precisely 4.4% of the vote in 2000. That number will have changed _enormously_ in 2020.

Demographic trends are a little like bankruptcy; which, fittingly for the Republicans in states such as Arizona and Texas, as in California and Virginia in the 1990s and 2000s, is a process that occurs gradually over time, and then all at once. 

The aforementioned point regarding the progression of Democrat-favoring is wholly true. The gap between the parties will continue to widen as younger and younger Cuban-American and Asian-American voters join the ranks. Indeed, the younger the pool of voters, the better for Democrats, only the more so due to the now-irreversible demographic trends. Baby Boomers, aged 55-years-old or older, feature blacks as their generation's largest racial minority by a significant margin. 35- to 54-year-old Generation Xers symbolize the national racial composition as it stands today, generally, with 61% being white, 18% Hispanic and 13% black. 

The samples of Asians and Hispanics pre-millennial were rather small, which explains why they tend to be categorized as "new minorities" by demographers studying the U.S.'s sweeping transformation. Millennials are 55% white and 29% "new minorities"--Hispanics, Asians, and those who identify as representing at least two different races. 

Nineteen years ago as millennials were making their way through their formative years into adulthood the young-adult age group was 63% white (in 1990 it was 73% white; in 1980 84% white). 

Latest projections have 2025 young-adults being 50% white. 

The ever-growing existential problem for the Republicans in Arizona and Florida is that, just as in California, approximately 60% of the millennial populations are comprised of minorities. 45% of the present Latino electorate in the U.S. are millennials, and while their birth rates will probably begin slowing down by 2030-2035 or so, it is becoming likelier and likelier that the time by which the U.S. becomes "majority-minority" is coming sooner than was projected as recently as a year ago. 

Other curious matters are at hand with this issue, however, when discussing it, for Mexico may be the most ethnically diverse location on the planet, even with Mestizos comprising approximately two-thirds of its population, but for one significant caveat. 

Once again speaking directly to 2020 for a moment, as recently as late May it was calculated the number for the increase in Hispanic voter registration in Florida since 2016 was 7.6%, approximately 2.8 million people added. A considerable swelling.

Doubtless, to some extent, in any case, a feedback loop has become an almost organic phenomenon at this point. Changing demographics leading to changing electoral realities leading to a sizable group of right-wingers complaining about changing demographics leading to more belonging to groups recognized as representing changing demographics to "side with" the cause of changing electoral realities, but it was always something of a _fait accompli_ that in a multi-ethnic, multiracial polity, elections become contentious over variegated and respective vantage points of interests. 

The 2016 election is a fascinating example unto itself. Asians and Hispanics, who are more taciturn and less politically outspoken historically, but whose populations are almost being remade with extreme enlargements of their sample sizes generation to generation, broke down--each--29% (Trump) vs. 65% (Hillary Clinton). Blacks, 88% for Hillary, 8% for Trump. Whites, 58% for Trump, 37% for Hillary. 

One of the more intriguing subplots of 2016 was--and this is where most U.S. media analysts have fallen down on the job, but hardly surprisingly so--is studying how Trump, far from "activating whites," or "upping the white vote" with addressing "white anxiety," found his share of the white vote _drop_ from Mitt Romney's share. Trump, in taking 58% of the white vote, found himself under-performing Romney by 1%, whose 59% lassoing of the white vote represented nothing less than a 20-point blowout margin over his opponent Barack Obama. Indeed, if only white voters had cast ballots in 2012, Romney would have won 46 states out of 50, with only Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Massachusetts going to the sitting president Obama in that hypothetical alternative universe. 

Trump's great victory, his most salient winning point, was in tapping in to voters who were different from the "Romney set," the "disenfranchised" and "disillusioned" among white voters, in states whose populations had been dealt one body blow after another by de-industrialization and in myriad cases the shuttering of their towns and way of life, such as Michigan and Wisconsin.

One could also say that the talk of demography notwithstanding, all the Democrats have to do is find someone who is less-detestable than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Cannot be too difficult, no? Well, we shall see. 

Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes; he won Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes; he took home Wisconsin with 22,748 votes. 

Taking those three together, Trump won those three states by 77,744 votes. 

Even discounting the likely inroads the Democrats have made in states such as Arizona and Florida due to overwhelming demographic change, if the Democrats can find someone whose presence will not keep would-be Democrats home on election day the way Hillary did, or, better yet for their cause, someone who can tap into those same concerns Trump successfully campaigned on alleviating in 2016, they should be good to go. Had Hillary simply won the Democrats' "home courts" across the industrial heartland, she would be sitting in the White House today, with or without the likes of Arizona or Florida.


----------



## FriedTofu

goldbergstraps97 said:


> Maybe so. The war in the Middle East is very much evil and wrong, which was pushed and pursued by both parties.
> 
> But I would say judging from the actions, and belief of the left (the pursuit of hedonism, aborticide, and infanticide, euthanasia and overall denial of God, vaccines) that they are indeed more so.


The left didn't elect a president that fits the antiChrist concept to a tee though.


----------



## krtgolfing

FriedTofu said:


> The left didn't elect a president that fits the antiChrist concept to a tee though.


The left just nominated Hilary as their candidate. :bosque


----------



## FriedTofu

krtgolfing said:


> The left just nominated Hilary as their candidate. :bosque


Does that mean she was worse than the antiChrist? :quite


----------



## krtgolfing

FriedTofu said:


> Does that mean she was worse than the antiChrist? :quite


One is the antiChrist and the other is the devil. Both candidates were just laughable. 

Kind of like the South Park episode. You have to choose between a douche and a turd.


----------



## FriedTofu

krtgolfing said:


> One is the antiChrist and the other is the devil. Both candidates were just laughable.
> 
> Kind of like the South Park episode. You have to choose between a douche and a turd.


The other being a turd doesn't make one any less of a douche. If one believe in the concept of the antichrist, Trump fits it almost perfectly. Yet same folks that cry about the concept all the time don't seem to see Trump as such.


----------



## Draykorinee

goldbergstraps97 said:


> Maybe so. The war in the Middle East is very much evil and wrong, which was pushed and pursued by both parties.
> 
> But I would say judging from the actions, and belief of the left (the pursuit of hedonism, aborticide, and infanticide, euthanasia and overall denial of God, vaccines) that they are indeed more so.


Okay.......I can see you're not going to offer anything of value.


----------



## Tater

FriedTofu said:


> The left didn't elect a president that fits the antiChrist concept to a tee though.





FriedTofu said:


> The other being a turd doesn't make one any less of a douche. If one believe in the concept of the antichrist, Trump fits it almost perfectly. Yet same folks that cry about the concept all the time don't seem to see Trump as such.


Oh for fuck's sake... fpalm

Trump isn't the antichrist. Trump has been doing everything the Christian Zionists want by moving the capital of Israel to Jerusalem and continuing to support Israel's eradication of all Palestinian land. That's their stupid fucking biblical prophecy bleeding into politics. Gotta get all that land under control of Israel so their imaginary savior can return to Earth.

Calling Trump the antichrist is not only retarded, it is massively ignorant of the motivations behind why the USA supports Israel as much as it does. Sure, some of it is neocon related but quite a lot of it is religious related as well.

The difference between American Christians and Middle East Muslims is that the Christians have figured out that they have to lie about their motivations and not tell people they are doing what they do for religious reasons.



krtgolfing said:


> The left just nominated Hilary as their candidate. :bosque


The left didn't do jack shit either considering that there is no left in the USA, not in any real position of power. The establishment Democrats are so far to the right that they make Eisenhower look like a communist. 

Stop parroting establishment propaganda talking points. You're doing their jobs for them before we ever get to the polls. You wanna talk about getting to choose between a douche and a turd... when the reality is, our choices are between a far right social conservative and a far right social liberal. 

One is a giant douche and one is a turd sandwich, without a doubt. Just stop acting like either one of them is remotely leftist.


----------



## FriedTofu

Tater said:


> Oh for fuck's sake... fpalm
> 
> Trump isn't the antichrist. Trump has been doing everything the Christian Zionists want by moving the capital of Israel to Jerusalem and continuing to support Israel's eradication of all Palestinian land. That's their stupid fucking biblical prophecy bleeding into politics. Gotta get all that land under control of Israel so their imaginary savior can return to Earth.
> 
> Calling Trump the antichrist is not only retarded, it is massively ignorant of the motivations behind why the USA supports Israel as much as it does. Sure, some of it is neocon related but quite a lot of it is religious related as well.
> 
> The difference between American Christians and Middle East Muslims is that the Christians have figured out that they have to lie about their motivations and not tell people they are doing what they do for religious reasons.


Dude I am just pointing out Trump qualifies as the antichrist more than other political figures conservatives has labelled as such on the internet over the years. The concept itself is pretty stupid. Even if someone like Trump did everything Christians want, he can still qualify for the concept because of false prophet and promises and attempting to replace Christ.


----------



## Kabraxal

Would the antichrist be more universally adored to be far more tempting and damning as the greatest evil according to christianity? Trump is too divisive. Which is why I doubt there could ever be an antichrist as most have defined him/her.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

FriedTofu said:


> Dude I am just pointing out Trump qualifies as the antichrist more than other political figures conservatives has labelled as such on the internet over the years. The concept itself is pretty stupid. Even if someone like Trump did everything Christians want, he can still qualify for the concept because of false prophet and promises and attempting to replace Christ.


Every time a new republican president is elected the accusations and the attacks are worse and worse.

Bush Jr was the devil until Trump came along. Now you see democrats softening their stance on Bush Jr so they can further emphasize just how radically worse Trump is. "Hey Bush was bad, but AT LEAST...." and then they fill in the blank. "This time it's different" they'll say. 

So even though it's a given that the next republican president, whomever that person may be, is bound to be less extreme and less brash than Trump in just about every respect (by virtue of default)... the opposition will still insist he's even more dangerous, more racist, more evil, etc. 

In fact Trump's sins will be forigven the moment he speaks out against whatever republican is the focal target of the next wave of attacks and they have to push the next monster heel.


----------



## Draykorinee

Donald trump unsure who is the bigger enemy, chairman Xi or the guy he hand picked for a job.

He only hires the best people.


----------



## Dave Santos

DesolationRow said:


> That is true about Trump arguing on behalf of getting tough on China since the 1980s, @CamillePunk;. :lol
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2019/08/21/75301...-a-battleground-state-ahead-of-2020-elections
> 
> 
> 
> Texas will probably not be blue in 2020 (Beto O'Rourke may be on the Democrats' ticket in order to take her home) but she is already looking at herself in the mirror, quickly turning garnet.



Dont you just think that the number of White people as a percentage will vote republican as time goes along? So even though the white percentage of the country goes down, the percentage of white voters voting republican will increase? I always feel like having 2 parties balances itself out eventually. In the fututre they will probably call hispanics white to tweek their demographics and message. Like how Europeans were considered a different group during election cycles before and now they are categorized as caucasian .


----------



## DesolationRow

Dave Santos said:


> Dont you just think that the number of White people as a percentage will vote republican as time goes along? So even though the white percentage of the country goes down, the percentage of white voters voting republican will increase? I always feel like having 2 parties balances itself out eventually. In the fututre they will probably call hispanics white to tweek their demographics and message. Like how Europeans were considered a different group during election cycles before and now they are categorized as caucasian .


It is certainly conceivable that this will occur, with the greatest foreshadowing of same being the shift in how Southern and "ethnic Northern" whites, after the better part of half of a century of Democratic domination wedded to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal coalition, defected after what they saw as the rotten fruits of the civil rights movement's legacy (dramatically increased crime and blight in cities, educational standards and realities dropping precipitously) and the antiwar movement and counterculture, first established by Richard Nixon's candidacy in 1969 as affirmative action commenced. 

However, one of the points the earlier commentary from this poster was directly addressing the argument (most frequently cast as an aspersion) that Donald Trump maximized the white vote or had more whites voting for him, when, in fact, his share of the white vote dipped a percentage point beneath Mitt Romney's four years earlier. 

Having two parties engenders balance, whether balance is a favorable condition or not, which is why the political paradigm is still generally favored as it is with many from the Baby Boomer and Generation X molds, but the mere existence of two parties guarantees little if one is demographically "wiped out." Between middle class whites fleeing California due to exceptionally high costs in living, housing, and the state's lavish welfare state requiring a host of taxes which have largely been attached to small businesses (even accounting for population California's welfare spending at $106 billion towers over the second-closest state, New York, which is pegged at approximately $63 billion, and the third, Texas, which sits at $35.5 billion), and the stunningly-fast population changeover demographically, made faster by aforementioned white flight, the state is now, fundamentally, a "no-go zone" for Republican politicians. 

Not since the zenith of the New Deal's political legacy, the 1940s, has the Golden State seen its number of Republican representatives reach single digits. Today only a handful of Republican representatives exist, having held 14 of California's 53 seats before the 2018 midterm elections. 

Slightly confused by the terminology of "Caucasian," as the primary reason census-takers and bureaucrats and those tasked with education standards evaluations switched out "Caucasian" in the 1970s to "white" is that the former implies a greater numerical sample. The Hispanic/Latino ethnicity did not exist until the 1970s Census; the longstanding "Chicano" bubbled to the surface in the 1960s California for American-born people who were of Mexican descent, who argued that they belonged to a group that was descended from Mexicans but different from same. In 1970 the musical group El Chicano's excellent "Viva Tirado" song was the #1 tune in Los Angeles for 13 weeks. South Asians, meanwhile, were ruled legally Caucasian until the 1980 Census. It is also accurate to note that before 1969 more members of a greater number of groups wanted to be identified as either white or Caucasian. Elizabeth Warren is hardly an isolated instance of someone highlighting possible "non-white" qualities in a post-affirmative action-established U.S.

As @Miss Sally; can doubtless point out, a good deal of generational angst and resentment exists between those who were identifying as Chicanos here in the western U.S. and the Central American immigrants who have arrived since the mid-1960s.


----------



## Dave Santos

^^

That was a well thought out reply.


----------



## Miss Sally

Dave Santos said:


> Dont you just think that the number of White people as a percentage will vote republican as time goes along? So even though the white percentage of the country goes down, the percentage of white voters voting republican will increase? I always feel like having 2 parties balances itself out eventually. In the fututre they will probably call hispanics white to tweek their demographics and message. Like how Europeans were considered a different group during election cycles before and now they are categorized as caucasian .


We're moving to a one party State and there's nothing that can stop it. It's going to happen in 10-20 years. Whites will always be split because they've always been split on things. Even if many whites feel anxiety over change it won't stop them from voting Democrat to keep up their "progressive" facade.

They've already added more to the White list, I believe it was the L.A Times or Vox who did an article on it and the people moved over to the White category rejected it because it means losing benefits. There's no real benefit to being labeled white, especially if you want a job, go to school or be in Politics. 

The Republican Party is pretty much done after Trump, nobody is going to really join it. Black Nationalists are already turning on the mass immigration from South America and even then they'll never vote Republican. We'll probably get smaller parties forming and that's about it. The Republican party will just a D-League political party to get Politicians their training wheels before switching.

A party you might see could be a Latino lead Christian Coalition type party, especially as the population grows. One would have already formed if it weren't for the fact most white Americans aren't Catholic. Eventually Chicanos aren't going to want open borders and endless migration, a good portion already don't. The contention between the groups is rarely talked about but it's there.

The Republican party by 2030-2040 won't be what is now. It wouldn't surprise me if FOX News turns into the only multi-political party channel while MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, HLN etc all still tow the Democrat line. :laugh:


----------



## goldbergstraps97

Tater said:


> Wait, is "the left" in denial of vaccines or are they evil for using vaccines? Cause that is funny either way you look at it.
> 
> You are either pro vaccine, which is funny because vaccines come from science and god is fantasy. Or you are an anti-vaxxer because evil "leftists" are giving our poor children autism with their demon drugs.
> 
> I just want to be clear what I am :lmao at here.


Vaccines are highly immoral to put into children, and I have personal experience to back my point.

When my nephew was just a baby, he was very happy, aware, lucid, and a very normal child. Well, my brother in-law decided that he should be vaccinated. My sister had her doubts, but she was pushed by the doctor and her husband to do it. 

Well, she did it. 

And not long afterwards my little nephew would scream cry, and would repeatedly bang his head into walls over and over and over. It got so bad that my sister need to put pillows around since he would hit his head so hard, it would large bumps and bruises. 

In short, my nephew had just become autistic.

Now, I find it odd that a perfectly healthy and happy baby boy who had displayed no signs of autism until he was vaccinated. My sister knows her boy, and after much study, she surmised that it was indeed the vaccines.

My little niece was also vaccinated, and she nearly died several times from food allergies. Her face would puff up like a balloon, and the only thing that saved her was an epipen.

My sister took her to the doctor and the nurse confided that she had seen similar children with food allergies, which happened to be directly related to the vaccine.

The vaccine contains many ingredients much more then vaccines given decades ago. It contains mercury and aluminum. I will say it again. 

Mercury. 

And Aluminum. 

Now, does the body need this? And what happens when it is ingested along with the many other ingredients. From what I have personal witnessed, allergies, which from what I have seen could have been fatal, and of course, autism. 

There have been no massive outbreaks to justify everyone to be given them. A child can suffer from vitamin C deficiency, but not from mercury and aluminum deficiency. 

In short to people who are reading this, Do Not Vaccinate your children.

It is a form of eugenics pushed by the government. They've been doing it for years, and it ranges from abortion, psychiatric drugs, chemtrails, food additives, war, and of course vaccines. 

And concerning God. I believe in God. Nothing can make me change my mind. He reveals himself to his followers in many ways by his grace. Christians understand this. Why else would his followers choose to follow and die for him if he was not real?

Just remember, Christ's death was prophesied. When he would come was also prophesied. There were many that witnessed his miracles. 

Or maybe it's just easier for people to believe that man and woman evolved out of slime in the ocean, and they just so happened to meet in this big world and procreate. 

Think about it. We were made from slime! That is insulting and untrue.

That everything happened out of nothing takes a bigger leap of faith, then a great God doing it.


----------



## Draykorinee

goldbergstraps97 said:


> Tater said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, is "the left" in denial of vaccines or are they evil for using vaccines? Cause that is funny either way you look at it.
> 
> You are either pro vaccine, which is funny because vaccines come from science and god is fantasy. Or you are an anti-vaxxer because evil "leftists" are giving our poor children autism with their demon drugs.
> 
> I just want to be clear what I am <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/smilies/roflmao.gif" border="0" alt="" title="ROFLMAO" class="inlineimg" /> at here.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines are highly immoral to put into children, and I have personal experience to back my point.
> 
> When my nephew was just a baby, he was very happy, aware, lucid, and a very normal child. Well, my brother in-law decided that he should be vaccinated. My sister had her doubts, but she was pushed by the doctor and her husband to do it.
> 
> Well, she did it.
> 
> And not long afterwards my little nephew would scream cry, and would repeatedly bang his head into walls over and over and over. It got so bad that my sister need to put pillows around since he would hit his head so hard, it would large bumps and bruises.
> 
> In short, my nephew had just become autistic.
> 
> Now, I find it odd that a perfectly healthy and happy baby boy who had displayed no signs of autism until he was vaccinated. My sister knows her boy, and after much study, she surmised that it was indeed the vaccines.
> 
> My little niece was also vaccinated, and she nearly died several times from food allergies. Her face would puff up like a balloon, and the only thing that saved her was an epipen.
> 
> My sister took her to the doctor and the nurse confided that she had seen similar children with food allergies, which happened to be directly related to the vaccine.
> 
> The vaccine contains many ingredients much more then vaccines given decades ago. It contains mercury and aluminum. I will say it again.
> 
> Mercury.
> 
> And Aluminum.
> 
> Now, does the body need this? And what happens when it is ingested along with the many other ingredients. From what I have personal witnessed, allergies, which from what I have seen could have been fatal, and of course, autism.
> 
> There have been no massive outbreaks to justify everyone to be given them. A child can suffer from vitamin C deficiency, but not from mercury and aluminum deficiency.
> 
> In short to people who are reading this, Do Not Vaccinate your children.
> 
> It is a form of eugenics pushed by the government. They've been doing it for years, and it ranges from abortion, psychiatric drugs, chemtrails, food additives, war, and of course vaccines.
> 
> And concerning God. I believe in God. Nothing can make me change my mind. He reveals himself to his followers in many ways by his grace. Christians understand this. Why else would his followers choose to follow and die for him if he was not real?
> 
> Just remember, Christ's death was prophesied. When he would come was also prophesied. There were many that witnessed his miracles.
> 
> Or maybe it's just easier for people to believe that man and woman evolved out of slime in the ocean, and they just so happened to meet in this big world and procreate.
> 
> Think about it. We were made from slime! That is insulting and untrue.
> 
> That everything happened out of nothing takes a bigger leap of faith, then a great God doing it.
Click to expand...

You have a child's view of the world, did you get too many vaccines?


----------



## Art Vandaley

So what's the wf consensus?

1. Trump didn't suggest nuking hurricanes
2. Nuking hurricanes is a genius idea and we should all totally support 

Or as is normal:

3. Trump didn't suggest nuking hurricanes, but if he had it's a genius idea and we should all totally support


----------



## FriedTofu

The official spin is Trump's objective of preventing hurricane hitting America is a good one. Crazy idea or not.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Alkomesh2 said:


> So what's the wf consensus?
> 
> 1. Trump didn't suggest nuking hurricanes
> 2. Nuking hurricanes is a genius idea and we should all totally support
> 
> Or as is normal:
> 
> 3. Trump didn't suggest nuking hurricanes, but if he had it's a genius idea and we should all totally support


4. Stop believing everything you read.


----------



## Draykorinee

Without a direct quote I don't think it's fair to bear him with that stick.


----------



## DesolationRow

The Elizabeth Warren Spruce Goose has taken flight. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166099222996893699

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165748798011912193
http://iowastartingline.com/2019/08...ren-jumps-out-to-big-lead-in-the-iowa-caucus/



> POLL: ELIZABETH WARREN JUMPS OUT TO BIG LEAD IN THE IOWA CAUCUS
> 
> On August 15, 2019 By Pat Rynard


----------



## ShiningStar

The establishment would be okay with Biden but I think they are starting to realize he has legit congenitive decline or in the beginning stage of Alzheimer's and they are gonna push the old man off the cliff the closer we get to the first actual races,the establishment love Harris but I think they are also pragmatic and realize after the Tulsi curbstomp that even they couldn't force her through.Establishment also like Mayor Pete,but he is not really catching on at all and probabyl needs multiple flameouts to get a major push and compete in the top tier. Unless the media get's bored,wants a horserace and turns on Warren in the next few months it's looking like Warren would be a decent betting favorite since she seems to get enough progressive support without pissing off the donor or media base..


----------



## Reaper

Trump Supporter: 










Most of them are worse than mindless drones at this point.


----------



## Draykorinee

Is that Deep?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Cuckold Trump, Ladies and Gentleman



















Melania thinking 'Finally. A real man.'


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166459973372698627


----------



## DMD Mofomagic

This week on Tucker loves Tulsi:

Tulsi may not make the 3rd debate! Oh no.... is that nasty DNC up to their old hijinks?!?!?!

Well Tucker isn't going to let his gal get ousted without a fight, he is bringing the attention to the people who can do something about it, Fox news! 

Find out what happens in their zany crazy adventures this week on Tucker loves Tulsi:


----------



## virus21




----------



## Therapy

lol.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166771137340002304


----------



## deepelemblues

At least 25 people dead in an arson of a bar in Mexico

Only the latest entry in a very long and shameful list of massacre by fire

We need common sense fire control, there's no reason anyone needs possession of the means to start a fire

It's almost like fucked up people will always find ways to kill lots of other people at the same time if that's what they want to do


----------



## Kabraxal

Beto Rourke is a fucking train wreck... from gun confiscation to now supporting abortion up to the day before birth? What's this fucking reject going to come up with next to grab headlines?


----------



## yeahbaby!

This Trudeau/Melanie air kiss love affair thing could turn in to a problem for Trump. First his daughter and now wife appear to have fallen under the spell of the 'deau dreamy eye effect' (TM).

If he gets the cuck label it could hurt him in 2020 IMO.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/26/melania-trump-trudeau-photo-memes-g7


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166697187226476546
If Obama can survive this, Trump can survive being cucked.


----------



## yeahbaby!

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166697187226476546
> If Obama can survive this, Trump can survive being cucked.


Didn't a drone come out when he opened the jacket button?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Russian nuclear missile disaster*

This seems like it should be a bigger story, but the media is barely covering it. 

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/no-one-was-warned-dark-twist-in-russian-missile-disaster/news-story/2b66e0257b458712b1f1599df14ffef3



> *Dark twist in Russian missile disaster*
> 
> Seven people are dead and six injured after a missile experiment went horribly wrong — now the doctors who treated them are disappearing.
> 
> It started like any other day in the tiny northern Russian town of Nyonoksa — but in the early hours, the first of two explosions sounded.
> 
> At 9am, the second enormous blast went off, killing seven people and putting countless more in danger.
> 
> The explosion on August 8 at the town’s weapons testing range killed up to seven and released a cloud of gas over a nearby town.
> 
> A radiological alert was issued to residents, but adjacent sensors belonging to an international network of nuclear monitoring devices suddenly went silent.
> 
> Intelligence officials believe the explosion came from a prototype SSC-X-9 “Skyfall” nuclear-powered cruise missile, called 9M730 “Buresvestnik” (Petrel) by Russia.
> 
> Now, analysis of the fallout from the explosion suggests a nuclear reactor blew up. But Moscow is continuing its attempts to sow confusion around the disaster.
> 
> Russia’s Defence Ministry declared background radiation remained normal. But the state weather agency said radiation levels had spiked.
> 
> Russia’s state nuclear agency, Rosatom, admitted on August 10 the accident involved “isotope power sources” but gave no further details. Russia’s weather agency has finally confirmed the blast ejected radioactive material into the air.
> 
> But Moscow continues its efforts to clampdown on claims of nuclear contamination.
> 
> *‘FUKUSHIMA CRABS’*
> 
> While reports immediately after the accident suggested contamination was too low to pose any danger, the Kremlin’s ongoing lack of transparency is raising fresh fears.
> 
> A doctor who treated survivors of the mysterious accident has reportedly been found to be contaminated with caesium-137, a radioactive isotope that is commonly found in the wake of nuclear fission.
> 
> Medical staff reportedly responded to victims of the accident wearing nothing more than face masks for protection.
> 
> But Moscow insists the caesium-137 since found in one doctor’s body must have come from “Fukushima crabs”.
> 
> Russian investigative news service Meduza reports the doctor was told he must have been contaminated on a recent holiday to Thailand. There he must have eaten seafood tainted by Japan’s Fukushima disaster in 2011, he was told.
> 
> “Caesium-137 … has the feature of accumulating in fish, mushrooms, lichens, algae,” a medical office statement reads. “With a certain degree of probability, we can assume that this element got into the human body through the products of food.”
> 
> Moscow continues to deny radioactive fallout from the blast is a problem.
> 
> “I’m not aware of it, I do not know what doctors you are talking about,” President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
> 
> *COVER-UP CHAOS*
> 
> According to the Moscow Times, doctors at the Arkhangelsk Regional Clinical Hospital weren’t told three bodies delivered to their morgue might have been radioactive.
> 
> Surgeon Igor Semin posted on Russian social media that officials “did not warn anybody — they threw them under a bus and let us sort it out”.
> 
> But such expressions of outrage were quickly silenced.
> 
> Agents from Russia’s FSB intelligence agency reportedly descended on the hospitals. Doctors and nurses were compelled to sign nondisclosure agreements and destroy hospital records.
> 
> Unconfirmed reports suggest up to 10 hospital employees have since been taken to a specialist radiation hospital in Moscow.
> 
> Yesterday, Russia’s national weather and environment monitoring agency, Rosgidromet, released a report stating its sensor stations had indeed picked up radioactive fallout. This included Strontium-91, Barium-139, Barium-140 and Lanthanum-140 — isotopes have radioactive half-lives of between 1.5 hours and 13 days.
> 
> They are also products of nuclear fission: the process nuclear reactors use to convert uranium-235 into heat and energy.
> 
> *DOUBLE BLAST*
> 
> Norway’s nuclear treaty monitoring agency says it detected two explosions at the Nyonoksa naval weapons testing range on the day of the incident.
> 
> “We registered two explosions, of which the last one coincided in time with the reported increase in radiation,” Norsar chief executive Anne Stroemmen Lycke told Reuters. “Both blasts were registered on our infrasound system. The first was also picked up by seismology”.
> 
> This coincides with unconfirmed accounts that a Skyfall nuclear-powered cruise missile fell into the ocean upon launch, with the reactor detonating as a recovery team attempted to haul it out of the water.
> 
> Ms Rosatom says five employees were killed in the accident. Two Russian military personnel were also reported to have died. Radiation levels in the nearby city of Severodvinsk then spiked some 16 times above average for 30 minutes.
> 
> Now, Moscow’s contradictory statements are fuelling fears of a cover-up.
> 
> *RADIOACTIVE CLOUD?*
> 
> Speaking in Helsinki last week, Mr Putin said Moscow could not reveal everything about the blast because of its military nature.
> 
> But that does not explain the potential breach of the nuclear test ban treaty. Several Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) nuclear monitoring stations in the area of the test facility were shut down.
> 
> “This was a troubling development that suggests an attempt to conceal radionuclide data,” writes Federation of American Scientists analyst Ankit Panda.
> 
> A CTBTO map of likely fallout patterns based on weather conditions at the time project the contamination would have spread southward, over Russia’s densely populated eastern regions and into the Middle East. Most of the disabled sensor stations would have detected such a cloud had it been produced.
> 
> Mr Peskov said suggestions the explosion had produced a radioactive cloud were “absurd”.
> 
> Instead, he launched an attack on independent Russian media for attempting to “distort reality”.
> 
> “Have you not tried to look at the situation from a different side?” he asked. “The way the situation unfolds makes it seem like somebody intentionally wants to escalate the media coverage around this, distort reality and present the situation as if there are reasons to be worried about the danger.”


----------



## FriedTofu

yeahbaby! said:


> Didn't a drone come out when he opened the jacket button?


Wait...what?


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Russian nuclear missile disaster*

Trump should tell Putin to cut it out with the nuclear missile tests like he told him to stop interfering with our democracy./s


----------



## RiverFenix

*Re: Russian nuclear missile disaster*

x10 any Russian causality numbers. 

At least.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Russian nuclear missile disaster*

Media probably don't want to be too alarmist before more evidence is presented. Serious repercussions if allegations were wrong. Russia attempting to cover up the incident doesn't help.

The crab excuse is too absurd though.


----------



## yeahbaby!

FriedTofu said:


> Wait...what?


One got stuck in there from a pentagon visit.

(Didn't really know where I was going with this whole drone thing in the first place TBH)


----------



## Carter84

*Re: Russian nuclear missile disaster*

U might wanna take that off or putting might come get u lol


----------



## Therapy

*Re: Russian nuclear missile disaster*



> but the media is barely covering it


They can't cover what isn't being released by Russia. Look how long it took for the actual facts about Chernobyl to finally see the light of day.. Russia makes up more lies and spins than Trump


----------



## Tag89

*Re: Russian nuclear missile disaster*

nothing to see here boys and girls

nuclear fallout/contamination isn't dangerous, says official spokesperson for nation obsessed with nuclear power/weaponry for past 50+ years


----------



## Stax Classic

*Re: Russian nuclear missile disaster*

Remember that Soviet anthrax accident cover up? lol


----------



## InexorableJourney

*Re: Russian nuclear missile disaster*

Release the radiation fungus.


----------



## RiverFenix

*Re: Russian nuclear missile disaster*

Russia is basically saying "Fake nooooz".


----------



## virus21

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166697187226476546
> If Obama can survive this, Trump can survive being cucked.


Cute how they spin that Obama had no scandals


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> Cute how they spin that Obama had no scandals


Here we go. Have you ever heard of a comedy show doing satire?


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> Here we go. Have you ever heard of a comedy show doing satire?


These days, its hard to tell anymore.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> At least 25 people dead in an arson of a bar in Mexico
> 
> Only the latest entry in a very long and shameful list of massacre by fire
> 
> We need common sense fire control, there's no reason anyone needs possession of the means to start a fire
> 
> It's almost like fucked up people will always find ways to kill lots of other people at the same time if that's what they want to do


Pretty desperate to make that equivalency, do you even think before you post?


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Here we go. Have you ever heard of a comedy show doing satire?


We don't have satire in the US and pretty sure your average joe actually believes there were zero scandals during the Obama admin. The MSM like the bible tells us so.


----------



## Draykorinee

Sad to see fox and trump breaking up, I'll admit I didn't think there sad a human stupid enough to claim fox has a democrat bias, but trump proved me wrong.


----------



## Miss Sally

This a good start to end systematic discrimination against women and hopefully people of color in the future.


----------



## krtgolfing

Miss Sally said:


> This a good start to end systematic discrimination against women and hopefully people of color in the future.


:heston

So lesser qualified individuals designing buildings, bridges, engines, machinery, etc. No thanks! This coming from an engineer.


----------



## Kabraxal

krtgolfing said:


> :heston
> 
> So lesser qualified individuals designing buildings, bridges, engines, machinery, etc. No thanks! This coming from an engineer.


THere's that... and then, this is sort of implying that women aren't good enough to meet the normal standards, which is just bullshit anyway.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

It seems that the older I get, the more I believe this to be true, so I thought I would ask you fellas.

Would societies benefit from some sort of long, difficult, drawn out voters courses to weed out lazy and stupid people? Would we function better if we had panels of experts running parts of society? Would we function more efficiently if we had someone above the commander in chief to say "Wait a minute, that's a stupid fucking idea and here is why."? Or do you feel that democracy works and would have it no other way? 

I look forward to responses from fellow members. opcorn


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

People are just too stupid... don't need anything after those words. 

As for "weeding out the stupid" for voting: well, who decides the standards and how will it be implemented? I don't see anything but abuse of that system to occur.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



Kabraxal said:


> People are just too stupid... don't need anything after those words.
> 
> As for "weeding out the stupid" for voting: well, who decides the standards and how will it be implemented? I don't see anything but abuse of that system to occur.


One way I could think of is to make an attendance percentage mandatory. You're either in the classroom being engaged or you're not. Maybe some sort of aptitude test developed by a team of experts from multiple universities as well. It's better than nothing at all, in my opinion.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



DesoloutionRow said:


> One way I could think of is to make an attendance percentage mandatory. You're either in the classroom being engaged or you're not. Maybe some sort of aptitude test developed by a team of experts from multiple universities as well. It's better than nothing at all, in my opinion.


Except many bright individuals just don't fit in schools. And a team of "experts" from universities is not exactly something I would trust in this day and age. Have you seen our "experts" from universities? Hell, they are a huge reason for a lot of the emotional stupidity going on.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



Kabraxal said:


> Except many bright individuals just don't fit in schools. And a team of "experts" from universities is not exactly something I would trust in this day and age. Have you seen our "experts" from universities? Hell, they are a huge reason for a lot of the emotional stupidity going on.


The aptitude test would involve mechanical and mathematical logic only. Something that cannot be disputed or opinionated. Also, your point about many bright individuals not fitting into schools is fine and I didn't say this method would be flawless. It's about reducing the impact.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



DesoloutionRow said:


> The aptitude test would involve mechanical and mathematical logic only. Something that cannot be disputed or opinionated. Also, your point about many bright individuals not fitting into schools is fine and I didn't say this method would be flawless. It's about reducing the impact.


The real problem is, is that even those that would pass your logic tests aren't necessarily going to be any less emotional or stupid. I think we just need to accept that humans will never truly overcome those issues and we just have to sign and facepalm a lot.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

Short answer: No

Medium answer: What makes you think you're different from "people"?

Long answer: The same argument was advanced for centuries by despots who routinely ruined their countries with warfare and idiot ideologies and general stifling of the people, while modern democracies, once they came into existence, have gone from success to success to success economically, intellectually, culturally, and militarily


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



deepelemblues said:


> Medium answer: What makes you think you're different from "people"?


 That's a total non-issue. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I will give up my right to vote if I cannot pass the aptitude test and attend classes in a timely manner.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



DesoloutionRow said:


> The aptitude test would involve mechanical and mathematical logic only. Something that cannot be disputed or opinionated. Also, your point about many bright individuals not fitting into schools is fine and I didn't say this method would be flawless. It's about reducing the impact.


Problem with that though is certain people excel in different aspects of school. I am very good with math and became and engineer. My English / writing skills are definitely sub par.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



krtgolfing said:


> Problem with that though is certain people excel in different aspects of school. I am very good with math and became and engineer. My English / writing skills are definitely sub par.


THere's definitely that... I was nearly inverse except it was more out of laziness and "I don't give a shit about math so why...". 

There is also those that are excellent doers, but ask them to try and prove it in school will end in disaster.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



krtgolfing said:


> Problem with that though is certain people excel in different aspects of school. I am very good with math and became and engineer. My English / writing skills are definitely sub par.


That's fine because the test of mathematics and mechanical is logic oriented. You either understand the way these numbers add up always equals this or you don't. You either understand that if I pour this water into this container 10,000 times it will flow exactly like this every time due to physics.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



DesoloutionRow said:


> That's fine because the test of mathematics and mechanical is logic oriented. You either understand the way these numbers add up always equals this or you don't. You either understand that if I pour this water into this container 10,000 times it will flow exactly like this every time due to physics.


Do not let the philosopher loose... do not let the philosopher loose. *is not shaking from the effort to not dive into philosophy*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



DesoloutionRow said:


> That's a total non-issue. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I will give up my right to vote if I cannot pass the aptitude test and attend classes in a timely manner.


Erm, no, it isnt a total non issue

You're positing that the masses are too ignorant, stupid and emotional to be trusted with political agency, that they are not entitled to it by the simple fact of their existence 

This assumes from the beginning that you exist at a higher level of intellectual and political competence than said masses

So, again, what makes you irrefutably more competent in those areas? Note that the question is not whether the masses are competent or not, so pointing to what you consider examples of their lack of ability is a non answer. The question is whether you are competent 

Humanity has been through six thousand years of the masses can't be trusted with political agency so the king/priesthood/aristocracy must have all the political power and the people none, and ~200 years of the opposite. Those 200 years have been better, by far, for individuals, groups, and the societies they created than the six thousand years were. The countries that today operate on models more akin to what you're advocating and less akin to classical liberal principles are undeniably worse to live in

What you're advocating is a kind of technocracy, and every technocratic government ever, whether its technocracy by commissars, technocracy by aristocrats, technocracy by priests etc. has been shitty as fuck compared to the standard set by countries operating under the principles of classical liberalism


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



deepelemblues said:


> Erm, no, it isnt a total non issue
> 
> You're positing that the masses are too ignorant, stupid and emotional to be trusted with political agency, that they are not entitled to it by the simple fact of their existence
> 
> This assumes from the beginning that you exist at a higher level of intellectual and political competence than said masses


 This is purely an assumption and emotional answer. There is no emotion in an aptitude test. You either understand the physics on our planet and how numbers function or you do not. Someone who lacks this ability cannot analyze more complex scenarios in a logical manner.


----------



## Crona

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

A fine mixture of both, but a lot of greed goes in there too. A lot of people seem to only be comfortable if they can be "more" comfortable than someone else.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

No they're not, but the way democracy is implemented in most of the world is designed in such a way that as long as you can manipulate the less intelligent people well enough, the more intelligent people don't really matter regardless. First past the post systems pretty much thrive in this dynamic.


----------



## InexorableJourney

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

-Informed democracy requires an education system at an adequate standard, which (nearly) all countries have.
-Free expression of thoughts, feelings, and facts. This rarely happens.
-A belief in the wisdom of crowds. Only the powerless ever believe in that, people with power crap all over it.

However informed democracy is still the best form of government, if you respect the rights of citizens.


----------



## The Quintessential Mark

Democracy would allow too much freedom for the wrong kind of people, Humans need order and to establish order you need leadership to keep others in line but the issue is none are willing to be fair and just, Anyone in a position of power just about always uses it for their own selfish ends so it's just a fucked up world we live in tbh.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


>


As an Aussie I'd love to jump in!

If anyone's interested in delving deeper than a commercial network news inflammatory tweet here's a good link:

https://www.smh.com.au/education/a-...ring-entry-bar-for-women-20190828-p52lpp.html

So what is actually happening here?



> The university applied to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board for permission to give 10 Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (*ATAR*) adjustment points to female students applying for engineering and construction degrees next year.
Click to expand...

What's being upped for females is the ATAR score (a ranking score basically relative to other students in their age group). Universities use the ATAR to help them select students for their courses and admission to most tertiary courses is based on your selection rank (your ATAR + any applicable adjustments). *Most universities also use other criteria when selecting students (eg a personal statement, a questionnaire, a portfolio of work, an audition, an interview or a test). *

As per above, the ATAR isn't everything considered to get in to the course, and it's only about getting in to said course, *nothing about passing or the mark you end up with upon completion of the degree.*

Again from the article:



> More than half of all students starting a bachelor degree at an Australian university are *now admitted on a basis other than their ATAR, with many universities using bonus points, interviews, or offering places based on HSC results alone.*


So sure, argue this is unfair to allocate them more points to actually get in to the courses - but as per above that's not the only factor to get in to a course (or it may not be a factor at all). Again it's not going to result in lesser engineers because it has nothing to do with degree completion scores etc.

Besides it may not even amount to much in the end because:



> But Andrew Norton, the director of higher education at the Grattan Institute think tank, doubted ATAR concession would encourage more women to study engineering.
> 
> "It's a very male-dominated workplace, and work we did recently showed that even when women have the qualification they don't work in the area because of the nature of the workplace," he said.



Funny isn't in how things change when you look deeper than a clickbait headline. We're all happy to mistrust the MSM when it talks down Trump or talks up an AOC for example, yet we're happy to take it at face value when it fits our agenda.

:heston


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

Nothing wrong with emotion, it's a normal part of who we are, it's unavoidable as well so we need to work with it.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> As an Aussie I'd love to jump in!
> 
> If anyone's interested in delving deeper than a commercial network news inflammatory tweet here's a good link:
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/education/a-...ring-entry-bar-for-women-20190828-p52lpp.html
> 
> So what is actually happening here?
> 
> 
> 
> What's being upped for females is the ATAR score (a ranking score basically relative to other students in their age group). Universities use the ATAR to help them select students for their courses and admission to most tertiary courses is based on your selection rank (your ATAR + any applicable adjustments). *Most universities also use other criteria when selecting students (eg a personal statement, a questionnaire, a portfolio of work, an audition, an interview or a test). *
> 
> As per above, the ATAR isn't everything considered to get in to the course, and it's only about getting in to said course, *nothing about passing or the mark you end up with upon completion of the degree.*
> 
> Again from the article:
> 
> 
> 
> So sure, argue this is unfair to allocate them more points to actually get in to the courses - but as per above that's not the only factor to get in to a course (or it may not be a factor at all). Again it's not going to result in lesser engineers because it has nothing to do with degree completion scores etc.
> 
> Besides it may not even amount to much in the end because:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny isn't in how things change when you look deeper than a clickbait headline. We're all happy to mistrust the MSM when it talks down Trump or talks up an AOC for example, yet we're happy to take it at face value when it fits our agenda.
> 
> :heston


This isn't exactly surprising, I mean we haven't reached the point where they'd put unqualified people into positions they don't deserve solely based on gender or race. There are some standards. I thought the headline was funny. :laugh:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

Yes, we all know how stupid the average person is yet we have to count on that moron to vote for the best option.

The problem with an Emperor, King etc is that they're not immortal so you can get periods of change that are incredible, Golden Ages but after they're gone it usually falls apart because the well put together system is pulled apart by inept people. Inept people go under the radar during these times because their flaws are covered up by the pure awesomeness of the people who know what they're doing.

Democracy is the best option we have for now and even so it's favoring the Elite and Wealthy because people are easily manipulated and easily replaced.


----------



## Draykorinee

So they're not lowering the bar, just another dumb headline from shitty media.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> So they're not lowering the bar, just another dumb headline from shitty media.


Pretty much, I mean you know how big of a mistake t would be? Would be like if they lowered the bar for Nursing or being a Doctor, there would be so many lawsuits that it would make people's head's spin!

I just thought it was hilarious at how it was played off, if it was serious would have given it's own thread because it would be a major issue.


----------



## Stax Classic

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

Yes. People think leaving one person behind is the end of the world :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they're not lowering the bar, just another dumb headline from shitty media.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much, I mean you know how big of a mistake t would be? Would be like if they lowered the bar for Nursing or being a Doctor, there would be so many lawsuits that it would make people's head's spin!
> 
> I just thought it was hilarious at how it was played off, if it was serious would have given it's own thread because it would be a major issue.
Click to expand...

Aye, would be a disaster, BUT, entirely believable in this day and age.


----------



## Tag89

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

nah i think the bigger issue is the 'i'm alright jack, i've got mine so fuck you' mentality of a lot of people have

you see this a lot from people who are currently in their 50s/60s or 70s atm

people who were fortunate to live in an era where they were able purchase their own house, have guaranteed pensions, were able to build up savings etc

their reasoning for (most) younger people today not being able to have any of that is that 'well if people would just work a bit harder...' etc

as for democracy, if we're being pedantic the only truly democratic part of society that exists (here) is jury duty/being judged by a jury of your peers


----------



## Lockard The GOAT

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

I've always felt like I was the smartest person alive (I'm definitely one of them) and that if I had final say over everything, the world would infinitely be a better place... This isn't just arrogance either, I've had to watch as time and time again the way I see the world or the way I think things should be are eventually shown to be correct at least 98% of the time... 

Stupid people, ignorant people, crazy people, etc. They all ruin the world by making it as shitty as it is. There aren't enough folks like me around, certainly not in positions of power and influence.


----------



## skypod

Do people not think that white men get into colleges every year for simply being good at sports? Or that white racist employers choose lesser qualified white candidates over better candidates of colour every damn day? Why do I only hear about these stories from one side? 

But nope, obviously a story about someone getting a position despite being unqualified means that person would have to be a woman and/or person of colour.


----------



## Gillbergs Sparkler

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

Every time I hear the word Brexit I wish more and more for an technocracy or an extinction event, the levels of cognitive dissonance and lack of realism involved in literally any debate around it is staggering.


----------



## CamillePunk

This is CNN. :lol


----------



## ShiningStar

skypod said:


> Do people not think that white men get into colleges every year for simply being good at sports?


It's mostly rich and upper middle class white people excelling at a sport other's don't have access to compete at youth level getting scholarship's to play their non revenue earning hobbie's (ie water polo,lacrosse,rowing etc).


----------



## virus21

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

Yes


----------



## skypod

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*

I think about this when it comes to referendums.

Like, say we had some popular nationwide vote on some medicinal policy. It was extremely complicated that only medical professionals understood it. But instead of just them voting on it, we open it up to the public. Clueless people walk into the booth and at the end of the day the incorrect thing was chosen and people die. 

There's no perfect system however because intelligent people can be corrupted just as stupid people can. How many politicians went to law school but yet are completely morally bankrupt?


----------



## StillReal2MeDammit

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



deepelemblues said:


> Short answer: No
> 
> Medium answer: What makes you think you're different from "people"?
> 
> Long answer: The same argument was advanced for centuries by despots who routinely ruined their countries with warfare and idiot ideologies and general stifling of the people, while modern democracies, once they came into existence, have gone from success to success to success economically, intellectually, culturally, and militarily


There may be plenty of successes, yes but there is also a bunch of failures. It just so happens that democracy has been implemented in industrialised countries and been successful. Im still for democracy but there are definitely some drawbacks to it. That being said, its really the best choice we have got for the masses.


----------



## 7x0v

*36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

https://www.kaaltv.com/national/straight-pride-parade-draws-marchers-protesters/5476503/

BOSTON (AP) - A "straight pride" parade and counter-demonstration went off in Boston Saturday without any major conflicts reported between the two groups.

An organization calling itself Super Happy Fun America announced the parade as Boston celebrated LGBTQ Pride Month earlier this summer, saying it believes straight people are an oppressed majority.

Counter-demonstrators accused those organizers of promoting an atmosphere of violence toward the LGBTQ community.

The parade, with marchers carrying signs such as "2020 Trump" and "Build The Wall," moved from Copley Plaza, through major downtown streets before ending with a rally at City Hall Plaza, where the crowd and speakers were outnumbered by those protesting them from behind barricades.

Several arguments and minor fights were reported on the parade route and police made over 30 arrests, but did not report any major confrontations. Four officers suffered minor injuries during the parade.


----------



## LinerHead

*Re: Are people too stupid and emotional for democracy?*



DesoloutionRow said:


> It seems that the older I get, the more I believe this to be true, so I thought I would ask you fellas.
> 
> Would societies benefit from some sort of long, difficult, drawn out voters courses to weed out lazy and stupid people? Would we function better if we had panels of experts running parts of society? Would we function more efficiently if we had someone above the commander in chief to say "Wait a minute, that's a stupid fucking idea and here is why."? Or do you feel that democracy works and would have it no other way?
> 
> I look forward to responses from fellow members. opcorn


Not read any responses but...

It's not that they're too stupid, it's that democracy doesn't really exist. It's a problem of language, it couldn't really exist by definition and it certainly doesn't exist today. 

Take England for example. The mainstream media is largely Conservative run, Murdoch is a known Tory. That means most of the political messages fed to the public has a Tory slant. Tories will do one thing and the mainstream media will report another to protect them. They are simply an evil party but their tax cuts for the rich ensure the right people will back them. It's not democracy when the mainstream media pick the political party. When Labour were in power, Tony Blair was in the pocket of Murdoch as the story goes. 

You have choices but how democratic is it when you have to pick between Trump and Hilary for President? Had it been the public's choice, they'd have had better candidates to choose from. 

So no, it's not that people are too stupid, it's because the media are hacking human beings and telling them how to feel and choose things. Let's not even go into the Russian hacking.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

Build a wall.. to keep the ghey people out?


----------



## LinerHead

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

i forgot straight people still exist in 2019


----------



## skypod

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

If they wanted to have a Trump/alt-right parade why did they just have it? If there excuse is that it wouldn't be allowed, they've sort of given the game away that they're going to use Straight Pride parade as a cover from now on.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

How do they know they're straight if they're all neckbeard INCELS who've probably never looked at a pussy beyond a picture or video on the internet?


----------



## Stax Classic

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

Giving a bad name to white men everywhere who don't give a damn.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

imagine caring about there being a straight pride parade lmao


----------



## CesaroSwing

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

This is very reminiscent of that book with the numbers.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

Why get so worked up about a few goofballs having a Straight Pride Parade? 

It's so silly and shouldn't we be having more festive events even if they're dumb?


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

Why would you try to counter such a lame event? Ignore it and let the saddos pretend they're doing something meaningful.


----------



## Mutant God

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

I was working in Boston yesterday I didn't get to see the parade or protest


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Draykorinee said:


> Why would you try to counter such a lame event? Ignore it and let the saddos pretend they're doing something meaningful.


Why ignore? join them! Cinco de Mayo has loads of white people getting drunk, wearing sombreros and eating Mexican food and it's not an American Holiday. Nobody fucking cares, join in on the fun even if you aren't part of the culture or straight, seriously. 

Life is too short, have some fun!


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Miss Sally said:


> Why ignore? join them! Cinco de Mayo has loads of white people getting drunk, wearing sombreros and eating Mexican food and it's not an American Holiday. Nobody fucking cares, join in on the fun even if you aren't part of the culture or straight, seriously.
> 
> Life is too short, have some fun!


I generally hate big raucous crowds, not that a straight pride would ever be a big crowd...I never went to the biggest Gay pride in the UK even though it went past my house every year. Not my bag at all.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Draykorinee said:


> I generally hate big raucous crowds, not that a straight pride would ever be a big crowd...I never went to the biggest Gay pride in the UK even though it went past my house every year. Not my bag at all.


I been to a few but the American Pride Parades.. can be a bit.. ehh.. though I heard non-American ones are actually really nice. If you don't like big crowds then yeah, parades would suck!

I think a straight pride parade could be fun if like a thousand liked minded wanting to have fun individuals got together and did it. It would be hilarious, people need to lighten up! :laugh:


----------



## PresidentGasman

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

as someone who lives near Boston this is just dumb, there is no need for straight pride as striaght people have not been oppressed in this country, as a striaght man ive never been insulted or punched for being striaght.


----------



## skypod

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Miss Sally said:


> Why get so worked up about a few goofballs having a Straight Pride Parade?
> 
> It's so silly and shouldn't we be having more festive events even if they're dumb?



Look up the the background and photos of what this actually was. I think people are missing the point. It wasn't a straight pride parade. It was a Trump/Incel/Pepe the frog/frenworld/alt-right/4chan parade. That's not just my opinion on how I perceive the parade. That's what it actually was about. 

Granted I wish counter protesters didn't take the bait, but lets not pretend this event had anything to do with straight pride.


----------



## Crona

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

What a bunch of lil snowflakes :lol I dunno what to call that gathering of clearly well-adjusted individuals, but I don't think I'd call it a parade.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



skypod said:


> Look up the the background and photos of what this actually was. I think people are missing the point. It wasn't a straight pride parade. *It was a Trump/Incel/Pepe the frog/frenworld/alt-right/4chan parade.* That's not just my opinion on how I perceive the parade. That's what it actually was about.
> 
> Granted I wish counter protesters didn't take the bait, but lets not pretend this event had anything to do with straight pride.


I saw a few pictures of dudes carrying around their waifu pillows as well. 

I guess wanting to fuck cartoon girls (most of whom are like 15-18 or even less) is part of heterosexuality now? 

Really, really normal and well-adjusted folk yah .. they're the ones claiming they're the normal ones :kobelol


----------



## yeahbaby!

Tremendous take on Trudea/Melania/Trumpcuck.

https://www.theroot.com/if-a-photo-could-talk-then-melania-was-willing-to-risk-1837582456



> Sure, she does that thing where she poses with her saggy-skinned husband during photo ops. Her moves have become so mechanical that there is literally an argument on Twitter about once a month that Melania is either a robot or an actress is standing in for the first lady.
> 
> Well, Melania truly came to life Sunday during a moment captured on photo with world leaders and their spouses during the G-7 summit; and like most things relating to Melania’s happiness, it had nothing to with her husband.





> This picture says “Save me because I’m being held captive despite having agency and being complicit in all my husband’s racist, xenophobic, fearmongering.”


Some great tweets in there too.

Such a bad pic for Trump! Melania must REALLY be counting the days until her marriage contract with Trump runs out. Wonder how much she'll make out of it.


----------



## skypod

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Reaper said:


> I saw a few pictures of dudes carrying around their waifu pillows as well.
> 
> I guess wanting to fuck cartoon girls (most of whom are like 15-18 or even less) is part of heterosexuality now?
> 
> Really, really normal and well-adjusted folk yah .. they're the ones claiming they're the normal ones :kobelol



What happened to the good old days when disenfranchised males used to join street gangs? 

There's something disturbing happening in a lot of white males aged 14-30 now. It's like their online version of joining a gang and having some sort of purpose to mess shit up and take down what they feel is the establishment. I think they see the way minority groups "bond" through suffering or kinship and want to have their own version of it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



skypod said:


> What happened to the good old days when disenfranchised males used to join street gangs?
> 
> There's something disturbing happening in a lot of white males aged 14-30 now. It's like their online version of joining a gang and having some sort of purpose to mess shit up and take down what they feel is the establishment. I think they see the way minority groups "bond" through suffering or kinship and want to have their own version of it.


Yep. Talking to other former Trump supporters and Kekistan etc, one of the most common things I've noticed is that they were seeking some sort of group acceptance. 

The funny thing is, that while screaming a thr top of their lungs about being different from women ... Being real men and all that crap... Putting yourself into an empathy group is essentially female behavior if we link it to sexual dimorphomism ideology. 

These young men that get into groups and gangs of any kind are essentially seeking empathy that they're not getting. It's kinda sad in a way, but the only solution we have is to hope that they understand what they're really seeking and find healthier ways to get it .. groups like the one's they're in now (like the Alt-Right, ethnonationalist groups, Incel groups etc won't work for them because those groups lead to inherently violent outcomes. Someone in those groups will always conclude that the ultimate solution is extermination)


----------



## ObsoleteMule

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Draykorinee said:


> Why would you try to counter such a lame event? Ignore it and let the saddos pretend they're doing something meaningful.


For the most part, its really lame to try to counter perfectly harmless movements like this... is “straight pride” a little pompous and unnecessary? Ofcourse it is but it’s hurting no one, so let those people bask in celebrating this mediocre ass “straight pride” parade


----------



## Reaper

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



ObsoleteMule said:


> For the most part, its really lame to try to counter perfectly harmless movements like this... is “straight pride” a little pompous and unnecessary? Ofcourse it is but it’s hurting no one, so let those people bask in celebrating this mediocre ass “straight pride” parade


Well the fear of these groups getting violent is always there.

The Charlottesville protest was originally also billed as "peaceful". Before someone drove a car into people.


----------



## ObsoleteMule

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Reaper said:


> Well the fear of these groups getting violent is always there.
> 
> The Charlottesville protest was originally also billed as "peaceful". Before someone drove a car into people.


You have a point but i think it would be much better if everyone ignored the incel/alt-right types. All they really want is attention and if we starve them of it, perhaps they’ll find something more productive to with their lives

But then again they do like to get violent when women arent throwing themselves at them so that might not be the best idea either.


----------



## Crona

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Reaper said:


> I saw a few pictures of dudes carrying around their waifu pillows as well.
> 
> I guess wanting to fuck cartoon girls (most of whom are like 15-18 or even less) is part of heterosexuality now?
> 
> Really, really normal and well-adjusted folk yah .. they're the ones claiming they're the normal ones :kobelol


Some of the "waifus" on those pillows were, I shit you not, chibi Sargon of fucking Akkad.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

If no one has checked the Super Happy Fun website I highly suggest you do so:

https://www.superhappyfunamerica.com/

It's so far out there I don't know if it's even serious or not. Either way it's hilarious. Milo Yiannopoplus is the Parade Grand Marshall and apparently is: 



> The most censored and most lied about man in the world is the Grand Marshal of the Straight Pride Parade. He has spent his entire career advocating for the rights of America's most brutally repressed identity - straight people


Quote from the Prez:



> “Straight people are an oppressed majority. We will fight for the right of straights everywhere to express pride in themselves without fear of judgement and hate. The day will come when straights will finally be included as equals among all of the other orientations.” – John Hugo, President of Super Happy Fun America


Hilarious pics.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Crona said:


> Some of the "waifus" on those pillows were, I shit you not, chibi Sargon of fucking Akkad.


How homoerotic. LMFAO


----------



## Crona

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Reaper said:


> How homoerotic. LMFAO


Honestly, the "straight pride" people are probably the most aggressively gay people I've seen since I was at World Pride in 2012. 

This is the face of Straight Pride y'all:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Crona said:


> Honestly, the "straight pride" people are probably the most aggressively gay people I've seen since I was at World Pride in 2012.
> 
> This is the face of Straight Pride y'all:
> 
> View attachment 79656


I feel like they were tryna parody, but the parody didn't translate well and in the end instead of making people think that gays are clowns (which was the intended purpose), they ended up looking like clowns themselves because they actually _**are**_ clowns. 

The 4chan shitposting and circle jerking on YouTube and Reddit doesn't translate well IRL, but they wouldn't know that because I bet this is the first time many of them have actually seen the sun anyways.

I don't have disdain for these people. I have sympathy for their parents.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Reaper said:


> Well the fear of these groups getting violent is always there.
> 
> The Charlottesville protest was originally also billed as "peaceful". Before someone drove a car into people.


Well then someone shut down all protests, there isn't one where antifa isn't beating up people. :shrug

Really this whole "T-they might get violent" crap that goes on between everyone is so eyerolling. So they're trolls I guess? Even makes less sense to get upset about these people having a parade. :laugh:

People need to either start having fun or ignoring these types of people, stop taking the bait and stop baiting each other. These people just need someone to ground them and send them all to their rooms.


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Reaper said:


> Yep. Talking to other former Trump supporters and Kekistan etc, one of the most common things I've noticed is that they were seeking some sort of group acceptance.
> 
> The funny thing is, that while screaming a thr top of their lungs about being different from women ... Being real men and all that crap... Putting yourself into an empathy group is essentially female behavior if we link it to sexual dimorphomism ideology.
> 
> These young men that get into groups and gangs of any kind are essentially seeking empathy that they're not getting. It's kinda sad in a way, but the only solution we have is to hope that they understand what they're really seeking and find healthier ways to get it .. groups like the one's they're in now (like the Alt-Right, ethnonationalist groups, Incel groups etc won't work for them because those groups lead to inherently violent outcomes. Someone in those groups will always conclude that the ultimate solution is extermination)


You have a real warped view of reality. There's nothing even linking these people to violence other than the constant lies that places like CNN spew out every day

I support Trump, see nothing wrong with places like 4chan existing (it's one of the few real bastions of free speech these days), and have never even once had thoughts about murdering people unless you count video games

And I sure as hell don't care about group acceptance. I'm an independant person who can think for himself and doesn't need to "follow" anyone. I've actually found that most Trump supporters are more free thinkers and independent than most of the sheep-like Trump haters who believe whatever their fake news and Hollywood masters tell them to believe (like a fairy tale about a Russian 007 being in the White House). They don't need cults or groups to accept them

Oh and P.S., there's no such thing as "alt right". It's a made up, buzz word that stupid places like CNN love to use to brand anyone they don't agree with


----------



## Miss Sally

So tulsi is getting excluded from the debates?

Seems like it now.


----------



## Draykorinee

There being nothing linking incels to violence is a corker Arkham.


----------



## Singapore Kane

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Draykorinee said:


> There being nothing linking incels to violence is a corker Arkham.


Assuming incels have anything to do with the right is a corker Dray. The incels are the one internet subculture with less respect than furries mate. 

Just because the media likes to say "har har virgin get laid" to anyone they dislike doesn't mean the incels are anything more than a miniscule forum relegated to the far reaches of the internet.


----------



## goldbergstraps97

Draykorinee said:


> You have a child's view of the world, did you get too many vaccines?


I see only a childish retort, but no explanation using logic, or science to back up what you're saying. Or the fact that billions have been paid out to children regarding vaccinations. And that vaccinations DO cause autism. This is a proven fact, of this I can attest to.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Singapore Kane said:


> Assuming incels have anything to do with the right is a corker Dray. The incels are the one internet subculture with less respect than furries mate.


That wasn't the point made though. 



> (like the Alt-Right, ethnonationalist groups, Incel groups etc won't work for them because those groups lead to inherently violent outcomes.


The use of the term incel was to lump them alongside other loser groups. I don't particularly think Incels are of any particular left-right political persuasion.

There is plenty linking incel, ethnonationalist and alt right communities to violence, its such a weird think to suggest that there's not.


----------



## Draykorinee

goldbergstraps97 said:


> I see only a childish retort, but no explanation using logic, or science to back up what you're saying. Or the fact that billions have been paid out to children regarding vaccinations. And that vaccinations DO cause autism. This is a proven fact, of this I can attest to.


Its a proven fact except its never been proven and has continuously been disproved. 

I think you've been inhaling too many Chemtrails my friend.



Miss Sally said:


> So tulsi is getting* screwed out of* the debates?
> 
> Seems like it now.


Fixed it for ya.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Draykorinee said:


> That wasn't the point made though.
> 
> 
> 
> The use of the term incel was to lump them alongside other loser groups. I don't particularly think Incels are of any particular left-right political persuasion.
> 
> *There is plenty linking incel, ethnonationalist and alt right communities to violence, its such a weird think to suggest that there's not.*


Such a Pandora's Box, I love it!


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> Do people not think that white men get into colleges every year for simply being good at sports? *Or that white racist employers choose lesser qualified white candidates over better candidates of colour every damn day?* Why do I only hear about these stories from one side?
> 
> But nope, obviously a story about someone getting a position despite being unqualified means that person would have to be a woman and/or person of colour.


Please provide us an example of this happening. It happens every day right? Should be easy to do.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Miss Sally said:


> Such a Pandora's Box, I love it!


Its also of note that many are non violent and there are alt left groups that are also violent, I would certainly not link all violence to one side.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tulsi has said she will support whoever the DNC nominates, even as they're gatekeeping her from the debates. :lol What is it with progressives and having absolutely no spine or negotiating instincts in the political arena? If you're going to give the corrupt DNC what they want regardless of how they treat you, why should they treat you fairly? Why should they put the issues you care about front and center if you're going to endorse their corporate candidate anyway? So dumb. So weak.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Tulsi has said she will support whoever the DNC nominates, even as they're gatekeeping her from the debates. :lol What is it with progressives and having absolutely no spine or negotiating instincts in the political arena? If you're going to give the corrupt DNC what they want regardless of how they treat you, why should they treat you fairly? Why should they put the issues you care about front and center if you're going to endorse their corporate candidate anyway? So dumb. So weak.


Disappointed, they purposely fucked her out of the debates with completely obvious nonsense. She should be fighting this tooth and nail especially with how blatant this all was.

Oh who am I kidding? Nobody will really care. This super Left I keep hearing about is always silent now when things go astray. Vote for your Biden, Bernie, Harris or Warren, I'm sure they have your best interest at heart. :laugh:

Oh even better is that this means next election they can 100% make sure it's all establishment candidates, not that it matters in 20 years we'll all be voting one party.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Draykorinee said:


> Its also of note that many are non violent and there are alt left groups that are also violent, I would certainly not link all violence to one side.


Oh I didn't think that's what you were saying at all just fyi! :smile2:


----------



## Draykorinee

I don't understand either, they fucked her over and now she'll support their choice. That was Bernies big mistake and now she's doing it. Weak.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> not that it matters in 20 years we'll all be voting one party.


Technically, we already are


----------



## Cowabunga

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

Heterossexual people organising straight parades and people getting into fights over them? This is like a prime example of what the internet refers to as first world problem. 

Are people so bored nowadays that they just want to get offended on a daily basis and feels special and unique in a "LOOK AT ME, AIN'T MY LABEL COOL?" way?


----------



## Captain Edd

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

They could've done this in a different way that didn't rely on provocation and getting on the news. Have some married couples ride around on parade wagons, or have families do it. Celebrate "Traditional Family" pride or something (which is basically the same thing) and get your message across without being obnoxious about it


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Singapore Kane said:


> Assuming incels have anything to do with the right is a corker Dray. The incels are the one internet subculture with less respect than furries mate.
> 
> Just because the media likes to say "har har virgin get laid" to anyone they dislike doesn't mean the incels are anything more than a miniscule forum relegated to the far reaches of the internet.


i mean i don't know what constitutes an 'incel' but i'm sure there are plenty of dudes out that are who are sexually frustrated and don't know how to cope with it. i'm not saying sexual frustration automatically leads to someone turning violent, but let's just say people who are sexually satisfied tend _not_ to commit mass shootings.

there are female 'incels' too, only they dye their hair blue and pretend to be a lesbian.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



Reaper said:


> I feel like they were tryna parody, but the parody didn't translate well and in the end instead of making people think that gays are clowns (which was the intended purpose), they ended up looking like clowns themselves because they actually _**are**_ clowns.
> 
> The 4chan shitposting and circle jerking on YouTube and Reddit doesn't translate well IRL, but they wouldn't know that because I bet this is the first time many of them have actually seen the sun anyways.
> 
> I don't have disdain for these people. I have sympathy for their parents.


Their parent's in many cases enabled this kind of behaivor growing up and never forced these dudes to try and find any kind of meaningful purpose in life.


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> Tulsi has said she will support whoever the DNC nominates, even as they're gatekeeping her from the debates. :lol What is it with progressives and having absolutely no spine or negotiating instincts in the political arena? If you're going to give the corrupt DNC what they want regardless of how they treat you, why should they treat you fairly? Why should they put the issues you care about front and center if you're going to endorse their corporate candidate anyway? So dumb. So weak.



How are they keeping her from the debates? They set a low bar(2%) that she couldn't clear. I think their is a legit grievance that certain state polls were not included,but it's a reach to say to say they purposefully exluded certain polls months in advance that would have put her at 2 or 3% as if anyone is psychic to know her best poll result would come from the Boston Globe .


----------



## Reservoir Angel

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

The aimless shuffle of the tragic whining incels.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

Another silly season to virtue signal that you hate all the proper people

Did I say another I meant the earth's axis has tilted and now the only season is silly season


----------



## skypod

Berzerker's Beard said:


> Please provide us an example of this happening. It happens every day right? Should be easy to do.



Lol a woman in Mississippi was caught on camera OPENLY denying working for a mixed race marriage recently. And that was her being honest.

When racist employers pick a white guy over a Black guy, they're not putting "because your black" in the feedback form. It's like you were born in the US yesterday and have no clue about your own country, its racist past or present.

You could live in a country with 50% White people and 50 Black people, but yet all representatives, business owners etc. would be 100% white and you wouldn't see a problem with that or the ability to look past surface level and wonder if theres something else going on. But of course its not written down on paper for you and critical thinking is overrated.


----------



## Tag89

goldbergstraps97 said:


> I see only a childish retort, but no explanation using logic, or science to back up what you're saying. Or the fact that billions have been paid out to children regarding vaccinations. *And that vaccinations DO cause autism. This is a proven fact, of this I can attest to.*


you need to stop huffing from those gas cannisters

all i see is dribble




skypod said:


> Lol a woman in Mississippi was caught on camera OPENLY denying working for a mixed race marriage recently. And that was her being honest.
> 
> When racist employers pick a white guy over a Black guy, they're not putting "because your black" in the feedback form. It's like you were born in the US yesterday and have no clue about your own country, its racist past or present.
> 
> You could live in a country with 50% White people and 50 Black people, but yet all representatives, business owners etc. would be 100% white and you wouldn't see a problem with that or the ability to look past surface level and wonder if theres something else going on. But of course its not written down on paper for you and critical thinking is overrated.


great post


----------



## Tag89

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

'straight pride'

:mj4


----------



## Reaper

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*



ShiningStar said:


> Their parent's in many cases enabled this kind of behaivor growing up and never forced these dudes to try and find any kind of meaningful purpose in life.


The thing about young men is that they take purpose and meaning out of value proposition to their community or social group. Be it family, friends, sports teams, jobs etc. This is no different when they end up in racist, ethnotionalist, religious, other politically motivated radical groups. How the individual behaves depends entirely on the values of the group. If the group has violent thought at its center, someone or the other takes it to the extreme. The values of the group deserve to be scrutinized in such a case.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: 36 people arrested at Straight Pride Parade in Boston*

Jesus christ who would go to this


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> Lol a woman in Mississippi was caught on camera OPENLY denying working for a mixed race marriage recently. And that was her being honest.
> 
> When racist employers pick a white guy over a Black guy, they're not putting "because your black" in the feedback form. It's like you were born in the US yesterday and have no clue about your own country, its racist past or present.
> 
> You could live in a country with 50% White people and 50 Black people, but yet all representatives, business owners etc. would be 100% white and you wouldn't see a problem with that or the ability to look past surface level and wonder if theres something else going on. But of course its not written down on paper for you and critical thinking is overrated.


You could play the numbers game with everything.

America is roughly 50/50 in terms of male-female ratio yet 75% of all nurses and teachers are female. 90% of the prison population is male. The country is only 15% black yet they make up 75% of the NBA. Is this a problem to you? If not, how come? I mean according to you there has to be equal representation all the time right?

If white people are succeeding in certain areas, why can't you accept that maybe they're just really good at it? Why do you have to assume they're holding others down? Or is it racist to insinuate what white people might be good at something.

What's next, you're gonna say it's a problem that Hollywood is dominated by jews despite them being only 2% of the population?


----------



## CamillePunk

I'd trust a person of a different race/gender who shares my general values to represent me. Wonder why people who consider themselves anti-racist/anti-sexist don't feel the same way. :hmmm Perhaps I'm just naive.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> I don't understand either, they fucked her over and now she'll support their choice. That was Bernies big mistake and now she's doing it. Weak.


It's really weak, I'm disappointed. She just ensured they'll fuck over whoever next time all the more easier. 



virus21 said:


> Technically, we already are


Oh we are but in 20 years even your average person will know it, so will the mongs who think there is a real party divide in the Sates. With what they did to Tulsi, there's no way any third party gets any traction. The Republicans will be a D-league/Controlled opposition party.



CamillePunk said:


> I'd trust a person of a different race/gender who shares my general values to represent me. Wonder why people who consider themselves anti-racist/anti-sexist don't feel the same way. :hmmm Perhaps I'm just naive.


Because racists/sexists have found a way to cloak their bigotry by pretending it's all about representation rather than their own personal hangups. It's why they ignore facts or anything beyond surface thinking.


----------



## ShiningStar

Berzerker's Beard said:


> You could play the numbers game with everything.
> 
> America is roughly 50/50 in terms of male-female ratio yet 75% of all nurses and teachers are female. 90% of the prison population is male. The country is only 15% black yet they make up 75% of the NBA. Is this a problem to you? If not, how come? I mean according to you there has to be equal representation all the time right?
> 
> If white people are succeeding in certain areas, why can't you accept that maybe they're just really good at it?


You will never have equality of outcome in everything even if meritocracy existed. However what everyone should aim for is equality of access and equality of oppurtunity. Given the quality of education or lack thereof some studen't get in America that doesn't exist remotly now. Also as far I am of white/asian and Latino student's largely have never been denied access to youth basketball or been discriminated against in college basketall or held back from becoming basketball players. Now that's not to say a good multi sport youth athlete of any race might get pushed by parent's/coaches into making a top priority a sport someone of their background is historically good and thus make success or lackthereof cyclical.


----------



## Reaper

*Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*

http://www.deepsouthvoice.com/index...EQztQrGnpU-sa8MLXV7p_qF2mE3-4NwgwyAD9wKkEud0Q



> *No ‘Mixed’ or ‘Gay’ Couples, Mississippi Wedding Venue Owner Says on Video*
> 
> LaKambria Welch claims her brother and his fiancée had been in contact with the owner of Boone’s Camp Event Hall making wedding arrangements for about a week when, suddenly, the owner of the Booneville, Miss., business sent them a message: They would not be allowed to get married at the venue after all “because of (the venue’s) beliefs.”
> 
> When Welch learned that her brother, who is black, would not be allowed to rent Boone’s Camp to marry his fiancée, who is a white woman, she said she drove to the venue herself and asked why. There, she filmed what she says is an encounter with a woman who works for Boone’s Camp (video below).
> 
> ‘Because of Our Christian Race—I Mean, Our Christian Belief’
> “First of all, we don’t do gay weddings or mixed race, because of our Christian race—I mean, our Christian belief,” the woman tells Welch in the video.
> 
> “Okay, we’re Christians as well,” Welch replies.
> 
> LaKambria Welch photo
> LaKambria Welch / Facebook
> “Yes ma’am,” the woman says.
> 
> “So, what in the Bible tells you that—?,” Welch beings to ask, before getting cut off by the apparent Boone’s camp employee.
> 
> “Well, I don’t want to argue my faith,” the woman says.
> 
> “No, that’s fine,” Welch replies.
> 
> “We just don’t participate,” the woman says.
> 
> “Okay,” Welch responds.
> 
> “We just choose not to,” the woman continues.
> 
> “Okay. So that’s your Christian belief, right?,” Welch asks.
> 
> “Yes ma’am.”
> 
> Welch says she believes the venue found out her brother and his fiancée, whose names she has not provided to DSV, through Facebook.
> 
> “The owner took a look at my brother’s fiancée’s page and wrote her back to say they won’t be able to get married there because of her beliefs,” Welch told DSV. “He told my mom and she contacted the owner through messenger to only get a ‘seen’ with no reply. That’s when I took it upon myself to go get clarification on her beliefs.”
> 
> The Mississippi Secretary of State’s website lists Donna and David Russell as the owner of Boone’s Camp Event Hall, LLC. Filings also show they own Boone’s Camp Mini Storage, LLC.
> 
> ‘Due to Our Christian Faith, We Would Not Be Able to Accommodate You’
> 
> Screenshot courtesy Katelynn Springsteen.
> Another woman, Katelynn Springsteen, also claims the venue refused to offer its services to a gay couple last year. She provided DSV a screenshot of Facebook messages she says she exchanged with the venue in September 2018.
> 
> “I was trying to find my best friend, who is lesbian, a wedding venue. I was immediately shot down when I was asked if they were okay with a gay wedding,” Springsteen said.
> 
> In the screenshot, a page identified as “Boone’s Camp Event Hall” (Boone’s Camp took their Facebook page down this weekend after Welch posted the video), sends Springsteen a list of prices for its wedding services in a message dated September 2018.
> 
> “Are you okay with it being a gay marriage ceremony?” Springsteen asks.
> 
> “Thanks for checking with us Katelynn, but due to our Christian faith, we would not be able to accommodate you.”
> 
> Deep South Voice reached out to Boone’s Camp. A man who answered the phone did not identify himself, saying only that they had “no comment.” He hung up before DSV could ask any further questions. He did not confirm nor deny that the video showed a Boone’s Camp employee, nor that the venue had such a policy.
> 
> After DSV first published this story on Sunday, the City of Booneville and the Booneville Main Street Association both released statements.
> 
> “(T)he City of Booneville, Mayor, and Board of Aldermen do not condone or approve these types of discriminatory policies,” the City’s statement reads.
> 
> Mississippi’s ‘Religious Freedom’ Laws
> In 2016, the Mississippi Legislature passed a “religious freedom” law allowing businesses to refuse service to LGBT people on the basis of their religious beliefs about marriage or gender. Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed that bill, House Bill 1523, into law.
> 
> After being initially struck down in federal court, the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the law to stand. The U.S. Supreme Court did not take the case.
> 
> The text of HB 1523 says that “the state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization wholly or partially on the basis that such organization … Solemnizes or declines to solemnize any marriage, or provides or declines to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act…”
> 
> Section 2 of HB 1523 defines those beliefs as: “The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that: (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.”
> 
> The law does not mention race.
> 
> Share
> One of the Mississippi House Representatives who supported HB 1523, Rep. Robert Foster (R-DeSoto County) told the Jackson Free Press in a January interview that he still supports the law and would tell a gay couple who was turned down by a wedding venue to find someone else to do business with.
> 
> “Would you say that to an interracial couple?” the Jackson Free Press asked Foster.
> 
> “I think that’s completely different situation. I just do, to me. It is not an issue, I think. I think race is completely different than getting somebody involved in a religious ceremony that goes against their core belief,” he replied.
> 
> “There are people who say they oppose interracial marriages on the basis of religious beliefs, though,” the Jackson Free Press pushed back. “Historically, Christians in the South believed God ‘made the races separate.'”
> 
> “Honestly, I just don’t see that in my views as a Christian. I haven’t gotten that from the Bible,” Foster responded.
> 
> He was a Republican candidate for governor at the time, but came in third place in the August primary.
> 
> 
> Mississippi House District 3 Rep. William Tracy Arnold (R-Booneville) supported SB 2681 and HB 1523. Photo via Mississippi Legislature.
> The Legislature passed HB 1523 after passing a similar law, named the “Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act,’ or Senate Bill 2681,” which made it legal for individuals and businesses to refuse to serve LGBT people if they cited a religious belief. The Legislature passed that law in 2014, before passing HB 1523, which makes it more explicit that Mississippi protects the right of businesses to discriminate against LGBT people so long as they cite a religious belief.
> 
> Mississippi House Rep. William Tracy Arnold, who represents Booneville in the Legislature, voted for SB 2681 and co-sponsored HB 1523.
> 
> Earlier this year, Deep South Voice reported on a Texas wedding venue that refused to serve a gay couple there. The venue told the couple that the wedding would violate God’s “plan and design for marriage.”
> 
> Mississippi Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves, who also serves as the president of the Mississippi Senate, presided over and pushed for the passage of both SB 2781 and HB 1523. He is now the Republican nominee to become Mississippi’s next governor.


Let's just stop this right now. While there are some christians who are fine with regards to wanting to practice their religion free from any kind of interference, they're also not the ones that are out there doing this kind of shit. 

When it comes to some parts of the deep south, "Religious Freedom" is nothing more than a dog whistle to engage in bigotry. It's easier to pass these laws claiming that "we just want to practice our faith in peace", but at the same time, this "freedom" also gives these low life people enough power to impact the lives of others in some way or the other. 

It's about power and control. 

It's not about freedom.

Let's stop pretending.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*

Belief that 'races' 'should not mix' is not a Christian belief, as appropriately noted by State Representative Foster. It appears nowhere in the Gospels, or the foundational texts of the early Church such as the letters of Paul, or the writings of Origen, or Justin Martyr, or Tertullian (himself of Berber heritage, revered as one of the Fathers of the Church, just as the other Fathers of the Church were of multiple races and ethnicities, mainly Greek, Jewish, Levantine, Egyptian, Anatolian, and in the second wave of early Church leaders many Italians), Irenaeus, Augustine of Hippo, Polycarp, etc., or the pronouncements of the church Councils of the first millenium, or the later writings of the famous medieval theologians such as Pope Gregory or Aquinas, or the writings of their more modern counterparts, or any part of the corpus of Christian thought that still holds influence in denominations active in the Christian ecumenical community today


----------



## skypod

Berzerker's Beard said:


> You could play the numbers game with everything.
> 
> America is roughly 50/50 in terms of male-female ratio yet 75% of all nurses and teachers are female. 90% of the prison population is male. The country is only 15% black yet they make up 75% of the NBA. Is this a problem to you? If not, how come? I mean according to you there has to be equal representation all the time right?
> 
> If white people are succeeding in certain areas, why can't you accept that maybe they're just really good at it? Why do you have to assume they're holding others down? Or is it racist to insinuate what white people might be good at something.
> 
> What's next, you're gonna say it's a problem that Hollywood is dominated by jews despite them being only 2% of the population?


fpalm


Jesus tap dancing Christ. Do you not see a difference between people in power (as in the ability to change/control things) over people who are sports players or nurses or whatever being an issue? What's next? All political figures being white but oh wait, there's still plenty of jobs in sanitation and housekeeping for those Black folks.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> fpalm
> 
> 
> Jesus tap dancing Christ. Do you not see a difference between people in power (as in the ability to change/control things) over people who are sports players or nurses or whatever being an issue? What's next? All political figures being white but oh wait, there's still plenty of jobs in sanitation and housekeeping for those Black folks.


Sorry unlike you I don't attribute somebody's success, or lack thereof, to their skin color.


----------



## CamillePunk

Seeing reports that Ilhan Omar's husband has confirmed that she fraudulently married her brother. :mj This after we found out in July she was using campaign funds to carry on an affair with a married man, destroying their family as well as her own.

Once again I am vindicated for continuously calling out how vile a person Ilhan Omar was. :lol Wonder if the usual suspects will defend their favorite Muslim because she supports progressive policies.

Now we need to investigate how Ilhan and her family got into the country in the first place, seeing as how we already know that they've cheated the system at least once. Perhaps we actually will get to send her back. :mark: Perhaps her family too.


----------



## deepelemblues

At least it appears she ain't banging him too, I guess it's more socially acceptable to marry your brother for the purpose of immigration fraud than because you're fucking him :draper2


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*



Reaper said:


> http://www.deepsouthvoice.com/index...EQztQrGnpU-sa8MLXV7p_qF2mE3-4NwgwyAD9wKkEud0Q
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just stop this right now. While there are some christians who are fine with regards to wanting to practice their religion free from any kind of interference, they're also not the ones that are out there doing this kind of shit.
> 
> When it comes to some parts of the deep south, "Religious Freedom" is nothing more than a dog whistle to engage in bigotry. It's easier to pass these laws claiming that "we just want to practice our faith in peace", but at the same time, this "freedom" also gives these low life people enough power to impact the lives of others in some way or the other.
> 
> It's about power and control.
> 
> It's not about freedom.
> 
> Let's stop pretending.


You're right, the whole 'mixed' thing gives it all away completely. 

Best to leave these people in the dark ages. They're stuck in their 'faith', this woman wasn't even open to discussing anything it seems. Completely closed mind. Probably couldn't even explain why she truly felt the way she did.

Can't wait for these legislators to pipe up about religious freedoms etc when it's not a white christian exercising their rights.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Seeing reports that Ilhan Omar's husband has confirmed that she fraudulently married her brother. :mj This after we found out in July she was using campaign funds to carry on an affair with a married man, destroying their family as well as her own.
> 
> Once again I am vindicated for continuously calling out how vile a person Ilhan Omar was. :lol Wonder if the usual suspects will defend their favorite Muslim because she supports progressive policies.
> 
> Now we need to investigate how Ilhan and her family got into the country in the first place, seeing as how we already know that they've cheated the system at least once. Perhaps we actually will get to send her back. :mark: Perhaps her family too.


Sources?


----------



## Draykorinee

yeahbaby! said:


> Sources?


Dunno either, Google shows nothing on her husband saying that.

The ethics board already looked in to the issues with her funding and said there was nothing there, so it was a bit fat nothing burger. 

Omar does seem to have a weird as fuck love life though, but most of the hysteria over it is also weird.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Draykorinee said:


> Dunno either, Google shows nothing on her husband saying that.
> 
> The ethics board already looked in to the issues with her funding and said there was nothing there, so it was a bit fat nothing burger.
> 
> Omar does seem to have a weird as fuck live life though, but most of the hysteria over it is also weird.


But don't forget CP is 'once again vindicated'.


----------



## Draykorinee

I don't trust politicians anyway so the fact they're often cheating on their partners is just icing on the cake but mostly irrelevant. Its just gutter politics and the lowest common denominator when debating politics, don't give it the time of day.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*

The laws are fair. A private business owner should have the right to do business (or not) with anyone they choose. Walk in my store and I don't like the look on your face, I should have the right to tell you to fuck off. Let the free market work its magic and those people will soon be out of business.


----------



## Draykorinee

Strike Force said:


> The laws are fair. A private business owner should have the right to do business (or not) with anyone they choose. Walk in my store and I don't like the look on your face, I should have the right to tell you to fuck off. Let the free market work its magic and those people will soon be out of business.


This is mostly my view, however I also think they should have to advertise their bigotry with some kind of sign. A big c whites only would certainly see a shop die very very quickly.

I do think that a business that is receiving state support such as a church not paying taxes should not be able to do this.


----------



## Strike Force

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*



Draykorinee said:


> This is mostly my view, however I also think they should have to advertise their bigotry with some kind of sign. A big c whites only would certainly see a shop die very very quickly.
> 
> I do think that a business that is receiving state support such as a church not paying taxes should not be able to do this.


Agreed. If you're supported in any way by tax dollars, you cannot discriminate.

As for having to openly advertise discriminatory practices, I think that would have been necessary in the past, but in the age of deh interwebs and social media, the word gets out VERY quickly about businesses that anger even a relatively small slice of the general public.


----------



## Crona

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*

Ah yes, the Christian "race." Clearly some well-adjusted people right there.


----------



## bradatar

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*

I think I am misreading this, but isn't this saying they're turning down a gay couple, but would have no problems with mixed race? From the comments I am assuming I am misreading this. Either way, it's 2019 and that's bogus, but business owners can do what they want and it is only costing them money. While I don't agree with not allowing gay marriage, I at least can understand why they're doing it. Different races makes no sense though and I can't think of any justification they'd have. Before I get screamed at again I don't agree with what they're doing, but *understand*.


----------



## Wridacule

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*

As a black man with a white wife I would much rather the bigots be up front with me with their bigotry. Tell me your backwater beliefs so I can take my money elsewhere


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*



bradatar said:


> I think I am misreading this, but isn't this saying they're turning down a gay couple, but would have no problems with mixed race? From the comments I am assuming I am misreading this. Either way, it's 2019 and that's bogus, but business owners can do what they want and it is only costing them money. While I don't agree with not allowing gay marriage, I at least can understand why they're doing it. Different races makes no sense though and I can't think of any justification they'd have. Before I get screamed at again I don't agree with what they're doing, but *understand*.


Well, the problem with letting businesses do whatever they want is that America has already tried this and it resulted in extreme violence against non-whites over several decades. We cannot ignore the lessons of the past.

You cannot forget the mass lynchings that used to occur when racists had more power, therefore continuing to give them more power again is a terrible idea because they don't just want segregation peacefully, they demand that law enforcement (which we know in this country is racist as a whole) will enforce the segregation in favor of the businesses violently. 

You let businesses serve whoever the fuck they want, and trust me they will call the cops and there will be deaths.


----------



## CM Buck

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*

Apparently she was misinformed. She posted some apology thing on social media but still absolutely stupid. If you are going to believe in God at least be well informed on your faiths beliefs.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*



TommyWCECM said:


> Apparently she was misinformed. She posted some apology thing on social media but still absolutely stupid. If you are going to believe in God at least be well informed on your faiths beliefs.


Well, racism is considered a matter of faith in some parts of the deep south. Yes, it's wrong. Religion does not actually justify segregation or racism, but it does not stop people from _believing _it does and for them to be assholes to others they simply need to believe something is a matter of faith even if it is or isn't. That becomes irrelevant. 

What religion actually _says _is completely irrelevant to what people _believe _it says and do as a consequence of _their _beliefs. 

Can't blame the religion itself, but definitely can blame the entirety of notions of "faith" that goes into creating the mindless zealot who does things in its name.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Let's stop pretending. "Religious Freedom" for some AmeriKKKans means freedom to engage in bigotry*

Plus, religious freedom in America has meant ant-science, faith healing, anti-vaxxing as well. People use it to justify letting children die instead of letting them have transfusions. Letting them die instead of giving them tetanus shots. It has even allowed Female Genital Mutilation to go unpunished. Etc. It's a huge mess and religious freedom is used to justify just about any cockamamie belief they can pigeon hole into their "religious beliefs"

Religious Freedom here means something very different from what it actually implies or implied even when this country was created.


----------



## Stephen90

yeahbaby! said:


> But don't forget CP is 'once again vindicated'.


CP's a troll that walks a tightrope to avoid being banned.


----------



## deepelemblues

This isnt rants is it because I don't think baiting by saying someone has a small penis is okay outside of rants

Anyway I know the source, it's uncovered true information about Omar before that was confirmed by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, but of course there's no confirmation yet of the latest alleged revelations

There was also a story published in the New York Post about this yesterday so I must question the Google skills of some people


----------



## Miss Sally

https://nypost.com/2019/08/28/ilhan...ith-consultant-sparks-calls-for-ethics-probe/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/27/ilhan-omar-accused-affair-married-man-shocking-dec/

Also a few talking about her hubby filing for divorce. 

I mean there's probably more.


----------



## Draykorinee

We know about the affair allegations/finance issues, it's the stuff about the husband now saying she married her brother 'according to reports'.



> Ethics experts and watchdogs agreed Wednesday with the FEC’s position that the arrangement was technically aboveboard, so long as Mynett was actually doing work for the money — though the optics remain troubling.


----------



## Irish Jet

Ilhan Omar is a better person than CamillePunk.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> https://nypost.com/2019/08/28/ilhan...ith-consultant-sparks-calls-for-ethics-probe/
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/27/ilhan-omar-accused-affair-married-man-shocking-dec/
> 
> Also a few talking about her hubby filing for divorce.
> 
> I mean there's probably more.


Thanks for the sauces.

Doesn't say really anything other than accusations, also about marrying her brother is that real? Or only according to scared repubs?


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> We know about the affair allegations/finance issues, it's the stuff about the husband now saying she married her brother 'according to reports'.


Honestly think there was an article saying this but I never read it, I know it's not a new accusation. If there's any truth to it, I'm sure it will come out and if it's true then.. well that's fucking weird.



Irish Jet said:


> Ilhan Omar is a better person than CamillePunk.


CamillePunk doesn't hate jews so that already makes him a better person. :shrug



yeahbaby! said:


> Thanks for the sauces.
> 
> Doesn't say really anything other than accusations, also about marrying her brother is that real? Or only according to scared repubs?


You're welcome! Honestly not sure about the brother marrying but it's so juicy that it's going to be investigated. I think the accusations have merit, think the guy she supposedly cheated with, his wife is filing for divorce. I'm sure more will come out! :smile2:


----------



## Irish Jet

Miss Sally said:


> CamillePunk doesn't hate jews so that already makes him a better person. :


No


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> Thanks for the sauces.
> 
> Doesn't say really anything other than accusations, also about marrying her brother is that real? Or only according to scared repubs?


"They don't need to tell any truths about anyone they hate. They only need to tell lies and trust that those who vote for them believe them". 

It's about having power once you have controlled the sheep into believing your lies. it has absolutely nothing to do with reality because in a democracy it's not truth that matters, but the _belief _in lies that does.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> "They don't need to tell any truths about anyone they hate. They only need to tell lies and trust that those who vote for them believe them".
> 
> It's about having power once you have controlled the sheep into believing your lies. it has absolutely nothing to do with reality because in a democracy it's not truth that matters, but the _belief _in lies that does.


So like a religion then?


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> So like a religion then?


Sounds like it doesn't it. 

Just enough to never have to prove anything at all and trust that assertion itself is evidence because most people don't care for beyond that. 

Ironically, the same people skeptical about the Russiagate crap are now sucking republican Dick over their allegations hurled at Omar. 

So typical. Not saying that Russiagate is true. Just saying that partisan hacks change their standard of evidence when a lie suits their agenda.


----------



## DOPA

I don't know about the whole marrying her brother for immigration fraud accusations but what is certainly true about Ms. Omar is that she sympathizes and supports groups which fund or who are also sympathetic to Islamic terrorist groups. This first came to light with her links to *Islamic Relief*, a charity which has been investigated and has been concluded as an Islamist group by several countries including my own. They have strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and have outed, legitimate anti-semites amongst their ranks. 

Ms. Omar was called out for being involved with and speaking at one of their fundraisers and she never once disavowed or distanced herself from them. And why should she when the Democrats won't call out one of their own for blatant Islamic extremist sympathies?

Now it's been found out that Ilhan Omar has also shown support for the company *Hormuud*, a telecommunications business based in her home country of Somalia. Why is this relevant? Because they are providing financial support for the terrorist group *Al-Shabaab*, who are an off shoot of Al Qaeda:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/ilhan-...3XSwVkfbPZX66WtVzByD9pBpi2Mx9UoCxFJTF86L_OQ28



> Al-Shabaab is responsible for many terrible terror attacks. A couple of examples are: the 2015 attack on the University of Kenya in which 147 people were killed and 79 others were injured, and the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi in which 59 innocents were killed and 150 were injured. In other words, we're truly talking about one of the worst and most bloodthirsty terror groups in the entire world. As such, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Al-Shabaab is linked to Al-Qaeda.
> 
> What is surprising, however, is that a company that's known for providing financial support to Al-Shabaab can count on the support of... Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165688109176172544
> The Clarion Project explains:
> 
> Congresswomen Ilhan Omar called for the protection of a Somali company with clear and known terror connections. The company, Hormuud Telecommunications, was founded and is run by Ahmed Nur Ali Jim’ale, a chief financier of the al-Shbaab terror organization, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia.
> 
> Although most political commentators seem to have missed the tweet in which she does so, Muslim reformer Mohammad Tawhidi did see it. Tawhidi points out at the Times of Israel that a 2009 UN Security Council report has detailed the involvement of both Jim’ale and Hormuud with Al-Shabaab. Quote:
> 
> According to the July 18, 2011 report of the Somalia/Eritrea Sanctions Committee’s Monitoring Group (S/2011/433), Jim’ale is identified as a prominent businessman and figure in the al-Shabaab charcoal-sugar trading cycle and benefitting from privileged relationships with al-Shabaab...
> 
> Jim’ale also controls Hormuud Telecommunications (“Hormuud”). Hormuud Telecommunications is a company identified as being one of the single largest financiers of al-Shabaab, which includes large lump sum payments to al-Shabaab in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and these payments to al-Shabaab were facilitated by Jim’ale.
> 
> Hormuud Telecommunications has provided key material and logistical support to al-Shabaab to include weapons, private fighters, and ammunition.
> 
> Although a lot has been written about Rep. Omar's private life, I consider this a far more important subject. She's either knowingly or unknowingly (in both cases it's unacceptable) supporting a company that's a known financier of terrorism.
> 
> American voters and journalists have the right to know what Rep. Omar knew about Hormuud Telecommunications when she published her tweet in support of the company, and what she has learned since. Will she take back her previous support for Hormuud? Or does she still stand by it? If so, why? Does she disagree with the UN Security Council resolution? Does she think she knows better? If so, how? And if not, why hasn't she deleted her tweet and expressed regret for writing it?
> 
> If the UN Security Council resolution is correct, Rep. Omar can't be let off the hook.



As they say, extraordinary claims demands extraordinary explanations which in this case would be Hormuud's links to al-Shabaab. So I went to the source and found the UN report itself and it did not take me long to corroborate the claim. The link to the report can be found within this link: https://www.judicialwatch.org/corru...ist-financiers-company-in-her-native-somalia/

The article itself is biased but if you click the 2nd report link on the 4th paragraph, you'll confirm what I am about to quote from the UN security council report itself.

In the actual document itself, on Pages 23-24, it talks about the 14th October 2017 Bombing in Somalia, so less than two years ago. This is what the report said:



> *Domestic and regional operations*
> 
> Bombing on 14 October 2017
> 
> 70.On 14 October 2017, a large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device exploded near the Zoobe intersection in the Hodan district of Mogadishu, killing as many as 582 people.54It was the deadliest terror attack in the country’s history. The likely target of the operation was the Mogadishu airport complex; however, after being confronted by Federal Government security forces at a checkpoint, the attackers detonated the device before reaching the target. Likely because of the high number of unintended civilian casualties, Al-Shabaab never officially claimed responsibility for the attack.
> 
> 71.A high-ranking Al-Shabaab Amniyat operative, Hassan Adan Isaq, also known as Abdinasir Jeeri, aged 23 years, was prosecuted and subsequently sentenced to death for hisrole in the operation. Isaq had been tasked with coordinating the deployment of a second vehicle-borne improvised explosive device, a Toyota Noah minivan, that was likely intended to breach the perimeter of the airport complex in order to clear a path forthe large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device.55
> 
> 72.*Two employees of the principal Somali telecommunications provider, Hormuud Telecom Somalia Inc., were also prosecuted in connection with the attack, for facilitating the entry of the large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device through the Sinka Dheere checkpoint on the outskirts of Mogadishu.56One of these individuals, Abdiweli Ahmed Diriye, was subsequently sentenced to a three-year prison term. *
> 
> *73.The Monitoring Group met with representatives of Hormuud Telecom on 12May2018, but the company declined the Group’s request to provide mobile telephone data pertaining to the orchestrators of the plot.*
> 
> 74. An assessment of the large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device suggests a TNT equivalence of more than 1,200 kg, making it likely the largest explosive device in Al-Shabaab’s history.57Explosive ordnance disposal specialists in Mogadishu who conducted field tests of the explosive material suggested the presence of both military grade explosives and the oxidizer potassium nitrate.58While there is no evidence to suggest that the large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device contained home-made explosives, constructing a 1,200 kg bomb by traditional harvesting of explosive remnants of war would entail a major logistical operation; for example, Al-Shabaab would have had to harvest approximately 6,000 60-mm mortars or 190 TM-57 anti-tank mines.59Further details on the attack on 14 October 2017 are presented in annex 2.2.


So two employees of the company were arrested in direct connection to the attack and the telecom refused to co-operate with the investigation. Suspicious. It makes you wonder what they have to hide. Well, the next section in regards to financing might enlighten us:



> _Al-Shabaab financing in Hiran region _
> 
> 88.On 30 March 2018, a joint AMISOM and Somali National Army operation in Afarirdod village in Hiran region resulted in the death of Al-Shabaab’s regional head of finance, Mohamed Nuur. Recovered from the scene were three ledgers, later obtained by the Monitoring Group, containing detailed accounts of Al-Shabaab’s revenue and expenses in Hiran region from October 2014 to March 2018.
> 
> 89.The ledgers display a sophisticated accounting system whereby Al-Shabaab collects revenues and conducts internal transfers using cash (both United States dollars and Somali shillings), mobile money, hawala money transfer and possibly bank accounts. *The EVC Plus mobile money service of Hormuud Telecom Somalia Inc. supports the efficient functioning of Al-Shabaab’s financial system, allowing the group to transfer a significant percentage of its funds to its financial hub in Middle Juba region without the need to physically transport the entire amount in cash across hostile territory.*68
> 
> 90.Annex 2.4 includes several case studies of Al-Shabaab domestic financing: annex 2.4.1 details Al-Shabaab financing in Hiran region from 2014 to 2018; annex2.4.2 presents a study of Jameeco checkpoint in Bay region; annex 2.4.3 presents interviews with theAl-Shabaab former head tax collector in Badhadhe district in Lower Juba region; annex 2.4.4 details checkpoint taxation in Middle Shabelle region; and annex 2.4.5 presents a case study of zakat (alms) collection in Berdale district, Bay region.


So there is a clear report and evidence of Hormuud helping to funnel funds to Al-Shabaab.

So the PJMedia article was correct, Omar is either knowingly or unknowingly defending a group not only supporting but helping to fund terrorism.

And considering her past attitude with Islamic Relief which I detailed at the beginning, I'm willing to bet it's deliberate.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> "They don't need to tell any truths about anyone they hate. They only need to tell lies and trust that those who vote for them believe them".
> 
> It's about having power once you have controlled the sheep into believing your lies. it has absolutely nothing to do with reality because in a democracy it's not truth that matters, but the _belief _in lies that does.


Are these accusations legit? not sure but it appears the affair might be legit, I'm not sure about the brother marrying but who knows. I'm just amused at how many people bend over backwards for her and the Squad members despite dog whistling bigotry and inane comments. Her comments are always excused.

Dare I say, these people seem to be as defended as Trump is for anything and everything. they have their own little zealots following them.

What makes me laugh the mostest, if this affair happened.. I mean, she's said things about white males that's not been too nice, complained about a lot and comes off as an identitarian yet rides the white cock carousel, along with AOC.. In fact I'm finding many of these Identity Politicking, racism is everywhere! White people are bad! types have a fetish for them. It's so fucking weird. :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

Seems pretty clear she did commit immigration fraud with a sham marriage and I've posted numerous sources and investigations about it on here but they get ignored and people respond emotionally with ad hominem attacks instead because it's all they have. A little disappointing to see people who aren't even usual Democrat supporters on here plant their heads in the sand on this issue but I can't blame them too much as you do tend to get painted with a certain brush for being critical of individuals who belong to special classes. 

What's more disappointing is the political cynicism of Bernie Sanders, who has repaid Tulsi's fierce loyalty in 2016 by not even remotely sticking up for her even when directly asked about the DNC's ridiculous treatment of her in the current primary. Guess at the end of the day we know who Bernie looks out for and how much he values loyalty. Just another politician it seems. :sad: He seems perfectly happy to defend Joe Biden though. :hmmm I do wonder about the specific details of whatever arrangement Bernie struck with the anti-democratic DNC. Seems more and more nefarious by the day. I wonder what kind of deals he'd be willing to make as president?

A Secular Talk analysis of the incident:


----------



## virus21

Yep


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-09-03/taliban-attack-kabul-civilians-killed



> Deadly Taliban attack in Kabul even as U.S. deal nears
> 
> KABUL, Afghanistan — The Taliban on Tuesday defended its suicide bombing of an international compound in the Afghan capital that killed at least 16 people and wounded 119, almost all local civilians, just hours after a U.S. envoy said he and the militant group had reached a deal “in principle” to end America’s longest war.
> Angry Kabul residents whose homes were shredded in the explosion climbed over the buckled blast wall and set part of the compound, a frequent Taliban target, on fire. Thick smoke rose from the Green Village, home to several foreign organizations and guesthouses, whose location has become a peril to nearby residents as well.
> 
> Romanian President Klaus Iohannis condemned the attack, “which, unfortunately, ended the life of a Romanian citizen and seriously wounded another one. I reiterate our profound commitment to combating terrorism at the international level.”
> 
> “People were screaming and saying, ‘My children are trapped in the rubble,’” one witness, Faiz Ahmad, said. A large crater was left in the street from a tractor packed with explosives. Five attackers were killed in the Monday night attack and about 400 foreigners rescued, Interior Ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said.
> 
> The Taliban continues to kill Afghan civilians in attacks it says are meant for foreign “invaders” or the Afghan government, apparently sacrificing the support of the people the militant group might wish to rule, even as the U.S. envoy says the deal with the insurgents needs only President Trump’s approval to become a reality. The accord would include a troop withdrawal that the Taliban militants already portray as their victory.
> 
> Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said that “we understand that peace talks are going on ... but they must also understand that we are not weak and if we enter into talks ... we enter from a strong position.”
> 
> He said the attack was a response to raids by U.S. and Afghan forces on civilians across the country. Although he acknowledged there should be less harm to civilians, he said they shouldn’t live near such an important foreign compound.
> 
> Questions are growing among some in Washington about the dangers of trusting the Taliban to make peace. On Tuesday, several former U.S. ambassadors to Afghanistan warned in a joint statement published by the Atlantic Council that “it is not clear whether peace is possible,” saying the Taliban has “made it clear that the war will go on against the Afghan government.”
> 
> A full U.S. troop withdrawal that moves too quickly and without requiring the Taliban to meet conditions such as reducing violence could lead the militant group to avoid making compromises with other Afghans, the former envoys warned. Civil war could follow and give Al Qaeda and the local Islamic State affiliate space to grow, they said: “All of this could prove catastrophic for U.S. national security.”
> 
> The attack occurred just hours after U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad briefed the Afghan government on an agreement “in principle” with the Taliban that would see 5,000 U.S. troops withdraw from five bases in the country within 135 days of a final deal on ending nearly 18 years of fighting. Between 14,000 and 13,000 troops are currently in the country.
> 
> Hours before Monday’s attack, Khalilzad showed a draft deal to the Afghan president after declaring that they are “at the threshold of an agreement” after the end of the ninth round of U.S.-Taliban talks in Qatar.
> 
> Khalilzad has not commented publicly since the blast, which rocked Kabul as many residents watched him speak in a nationally televised interview about the deal and Afghanistan’s future.
> 
> Shaken Kabul residents questioned whether the Taliban will respect any agreement, especially after foreign troops withdraw.
> 
> “This what the Taliban are up to in Afghanistan; totally committed to total destruction. Can they be trusted!!??” presidential spokesman Sediq Seddiqi tweeted.
> 
> The Taliban wants all of the approximately 20,000 U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops out of Afghanistan immediately, while the U.S. seeks a withdrawal in phases that would depend on the Taliban meeting certain conditions such as a reduction in violence.
> 
> Attacks have surged in recent months, including Taliban assaults on two provincial capitals over the weekend, as the group also seeks to strengthen its negotiating position with the Afghan government in the even more challenging intra-Afghan talks that are meant to follow a U.S.-Taliban deal. The Taliban has rejected talking with the government so far, dismissing it as a U.S. puppet.
> 
> Some analysts also have warned that some factions of the Taliban might be expressing displeasure with the U.S. deal, though Taliban political leaders at the talks in Qatar have insisted that their tens of thousands of fighters would respect whatever agreement is reached.
> 
> The militant group is at its strongest since the U.S.-led invasion to topple its government after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. The Taliban now controls or holds sway over roughly half of Afghanistan.
> 
> The United Nations and others say civilians are suffering, often caught in the cross-fire as government forces, backed by the U.S., pursue the militants with airstrikes and raids. Afghanistan was the world’s deadliest conflict in 2018.
> 
> The Taliban spokesman, Mujahid, said that whenever there is a reduction of violence in Afghan cities, the government asserts that the militant group is no longer able to carry out attacks because of stronger Afghan security forces.
> 
> “They should realize that they can’t stop the Taliban,” Mujahid said. “Hopefully they must understand that by now.”




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170469619154530305Really unfortunate news. :lauren


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170526626494521344
Interesting to ponder, isn't it? :mj Couldn't possibly be that their sources are largely made up, or don't have nearly the level of access they pretend to have.

Instead the media was preoccupied by...*checks notes*...a sharpie mark. :lol Oh dear. These are _such_ serious individuals we're dealing with here aren't they? :lol


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Seems pretty clear she did commit immigration fraud with a sham marriage and I've posted numerous sources and investigations about it on here but they get ignored and people respond emotionally with ad hominem attacks instead because it's all they have.


A few pages ago when you claimed you were vindicated about the Omar accusations, I asked you to provide sources and I was ignored.

Miss Sally provided sources which were inconclusive at best.

If you've posted these reliable sources on the matter before they should be easy enough to find again and post for us?


----------



## Draykorinee

yeahbaby! said:


> A few pages ago when you claimed you were vindicated about the Omar accusations, I asked you to provide sources and I was ignored.
> 
> Miss Sally provided sources which were inconclusive at best.
> 
> If you've posted these reliable sources on the matter before they should be easy enough to find again and post for us?


Yup, still waiting on these reliable reports that confirmed her jilted husband has said she married her brother. Probably some daily wire or red state article no doubt. Google is not helping.

I'm not saying she hasn't married her brother, but for the same reason I never said Obama was a Muslim from Somalia or whatever I'm not going to put any credence to the claims until there's proof, I'm not some conspiracy theorist desperate to make attacks on people for vindication.

She does need to come clean about the affair, looks pretty obvious she's been riding someone else, I don't see the attraction to her myself. The hysteria from the right over her is hilarious though, so many bullshit claims.


----------



## Reaper

Like I said, the standards of evidence is extremely low. Some employees of an organization committed an act of terror ergo Omar supports terrorists because she's loosely linked to that organization is the same BS people used against Trump with regards to the Russiagate BS but you know how biased hacks operate.

"Conclusive evidence". There is none. All there is is a bunch of conspiracy theorist hacks slandering Omar. 

Omar isn't the perfect politician. But the typical Republitard truther nonsense is just that.



Draykorinee said:


> *She does need to come clean about the affair*, looks pretty obvious she's been riding someone else, I don't see the attraction to her myself. The hysteria from the right over her is hilarious though, so many bullshit claims.


That's silly ... Anyone could accuse anyone of anything that does not mean they have to "come clean" just because the retarded accusation managed to gain traction.

And we know really why this nonsense is gaining traction. It's because idiots who know nothing about Islam think that Muslims are ok with affairs with siblings or that even a paper marriage to a sibling is possible. 

This is typical cultural imperialist thinking coming from people who want to pretend that Muslims are 100% ok with sibling incest. Muslim clerics would never agree to such a marriage and it couldn't be legalized. 

They're also admitting that their immigration system is also chalk full of idiots .. but it's a projection of their own ignorance of this country's immigration procedures to believe that such a thing is possible.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> That's silly ... Anyone could accuse anyone of anything that does not mean they have to "come clean" just because the retarded accusation managed to gain traction.


Think you're confusing the 2 things, the affair with the political strategist initially looked fairly robust, however I've just looked and he's now denied it and so has Omar so I will retract the bolded bit you highlighted, I was wrong to suggest that.

The other is the idea she married her brother, something Cam has said comes from a reliable source that vidicates him in thinking Omar is a horrible person, however those sources have yet to be revealed. I've never given that a shred of credence.

So basically the vindication comes from a now denied affair and an as yet undisclosed source.

Oh, and she's a rampant anti-semite, supporter of terrorism and a self proclaimed hater of America of course! Cam's gone all the way down the Dailywire rabbit hole.


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


>


The only way to really afford kids nowadays is to be rich, have parents who have a home paid off that you can inherit or to be very poor.

If you're poor and have loads of kids you get massive income tax returns, can qualify for most programs and even can get Government aid for your kids to go to College. In some areas depending on the demographics and laws this can even apply to whites.

If you're middle of the road or making enough money to get taxed you're fucked. You cannot qualify for anything. There's a reason why the wealth gap is increasing and that's because you need to be bottom of the barrel or rich to do much.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*



> Key Points
> 
> Total US debt including all forms of government, state, local, financial and entitlement liabilities comes close to 2,000% of GDP, according to AB Bernstein.
> The biggest potential load comes from entitlements, but is being pressured from rising levels of federal government debt as well.
> The warnings about potential debt hazards come as the total federal debt outstanding has surged to $22.5 trillion.
> A debt reform advocate says now is the time for the U.S. to tackle the issue, before recession hits.
> 
> Total potential debt for the U.S. by one all-encompassing measure is running close to 2,000% of GDP, according to an analysis that suggests danger but also cautions against reading too much into the level.
> 
> AB Bernstein came up with the calculation — 1,832%, to be exact — by including not only traditional levels of public debt like bonds but also financial debt and all its complexities as well as future obligations for so-called entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and public pensions.
> 
> Putting all that together paints a daunting picture but one that requires nuance to understand. Paramount is realizing that not all of the debt obligations are set in stone, and it's important to know where the leeway is, particularly in the government programs that can be changed either by legislation or accounting.
> 
> "This conceptual difference is important to acknowledge because this lens is often used by those who wish to paint a dire picture about debt," Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak, chief U.S. economist at AB Bernstein, said in the report. "While the picture is dire, such numbers don't prove we are doomed or that a debt crisis is inevitable."
> 
> Crisis measures cut both ways — sometimes a seemingly smaller level of debt can cause outsized problems during times of economic stress, such as during the financial crisis. And larger levels of debt can be sustained so long as other conditions, like leverage levels, or debt to capital, are manageable.
> 
> The key is not always gross dollar amount but rather ability to pay.
> 
> "U.S. debt is large. And it's growing. But if we want to think about debt problems (in any sector – sovereign, households, firms or financials) the conditions rather than the levels are more significant," Carlsson-Szlezak said. "Debt problems could, arguably would have, already happened at lower levels of debt if the macro conditions forced it."
> 'Profoundly negative effects'
> 
> The warnings about potential debt hazards come as the total federal debt outstanding has surged to $22.5 trillion, or about 106% of GDP. Excluding intragovernmental obligations, debt held by the public is $16.7 trillion, or 78% of GDP.
> 
> That latter total, considered to be more relevant as an economic burden, is likely to rise to 105% by 2028, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. However, the CBO notes that the numbers are subject to revision depending on how government policies play out.
> 
> Advocates for fiscal reform argue that the debt impact has indeed reached the point where action is necessary.
> 
> "Globally, we have become over-reliant on borrowing as a solution for everything. Political excuses abound for why it doesn't matter, which just clearly isn't the case," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan committee of legislators, business leaders and economists that counts former Federal Reserve chairs Paul Volcker and Janet Yellen among its members.
> 
> "We are quickly approaching a situation where we have dug ourselves a debt hole which is doing to have profoundly negative effects on the economy for probably decades going forward," MacGuineas added.
> 
> In its calculations, AB Bernstein pulls in debt from a variety of sources and compares it to GDP as follows:
> 
> 100% of GDP using federal, state and local government debt combined.
> 150% for households and firms
> 450% for financial debt, which carries "conceptual issues and risks," namely that debt held by financial firms often represents potential in a worst-case scenario involving various derivative instruments that can carry high notional levels that are unlikely ever to be realized.
> 27% in trusts for social insurance programs.
> 484%, which values all the promises from current social insurance programs.
> 633%, which tallies up an "infinite horizon" of obligations for social programs, rather than just the traditional 75 years used in computations.
> 
> Timing is everything
> 
> That total gets the debt load around the 2,000% mark, though Carlsson-Szlezak points out that different debt carries different risks.
> 
> "A default on U.S. treasury bonds would be catastrophic to the global economy – whereas changes in policy (while painful for those whose future benefits were diminished) would barely register on the economic horizon," he wrote.
> 
> Impacts on individual parts of the economy would vary.
> 
> Moody's Investors Service recently warned that an already growing number of junk-rated companies could "swell dramatically" in the next downturn, "substantially increasing default risk."
> 
> "In the next credit cycle downturn, then, the generally lower credit quality of today's speculative-grade population means that the default count could exceed the Great Recession peak of 14% of all rated issuers," Christina Padgett, a Moody's senior vice president, said in a statement.
> 
> Currently, though, credit default rates remain low as economic conditions prove favorable.
> 
> Similarly, on a macro level recession fears have proven unwarranted so far as growth continues albeit at a slower pace than in 2018. McGuineas of the CRFB said that now is the time then, for the country to start doing something about the debt situation.
> 
> "First, you start having politicians level with voters instead of promising freebies. Second, you recognize that the time to do that is when your economy is strong," she said. "When people were arguing for more borrowing they should have been doing the reverse. We're still not in recession. It's time to put in long-term strategies."


Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/rea...cking-2000percent-of-gdp-report-suggests.html


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> The only way to really afford kids nowadays is to be rich, have parents who have a home paid off that you can inherit or to be very poor.
> 
> If you're poor and have loads of kids you get massive income tax returns, can qualify for most programs and even can get Government aid for your kids to go to College. In some areas depending on the demographics and laws this can even apply to whites.
> 
> If you're middle of the road or making enough money to get taxed you're fucked. You cannot qualify for anything. There's a reason why the wealth gap is increasing and that's because you need to be bottom of the barrel or rich to do much.


What a novel idea it would be for your leaders to focus on domestic issues like this rather than harp on about Russiagate part 1000, whatever the Dem nominees are doing, Religious Freedoms etc etc.

I mean jesus christ in this report Alabama was cited as having the worst poverty in the 1st world! 

https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-un-poverty-environmental-racism-743601



> Of particular concern to Alston are specific poverty-related issues that have surfaced across the country in recent years, such as an outbreak of hookworm in Alabama in 2017—a disease typically found in nations with substandard sanitary conditions in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, as reported by The Guardian.


I mean fuck me!


----------



## Stephen90

virus21 said:


>


Ben Shapiro had a stroke when he read this.


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> What a novel idea it would be for your leaders to focus on domestic issues like this rather than harp on about Russiagate part 1000, whatever the Dem nominees are doing, Religious Freedoms etc etc.
> 
> I mean jesus christ in this report Alabama was cited as having the worst poverty in the 1st world!
> 
> https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-un-poverty-environmental-racism-743601
> 
> 
> 
> I mean fuck me!


Alabama is a what I'd call the first real example of an absolute idiocracy in the USA. 

Anyone that sees it for what it is runs away to have a better life elsewhere ... keeping it trapped inside the bubble of depravity it exists in. Brain Drain effect.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*

It doesn't matter how much fake money you print or debt you owe when you can just nuke your debtors.


----------



## MontyCora

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*

This sounds like an excellent time to start cutting taxes.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*

But yeah massive tax cuts and spending billions on a pointless wall is totally a sound fiscal idea....


----------



## Draykorinee

I think we should cut taxes for the rich to encourage the well documented trickle down economics, if the rich get richer then they'll pass that on to the poor.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*



Reaper said:


> It doesn't matter how much fake money you print or debt you owe when you can just nuke your debtors.


We'll print more and more money and one day it will collapse on itself. The bankers and rich will be doing just dandy though. It's all part of the plan though, just you wait!




Reservoir Angel said:


> But yeah massive tax cuts and spending billions on a pointless wall is totally a sound fiscal idea....


It's literally a drop in the bucket of spending the US does, there's so many stupid and more worthless programs and things the US buys compared to the wall. The wall isn't even the same orbit as the worst things getting money spent on. That's how badly the Government spends money.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> What a novel idea it would be for your leaders to focus on domestic issues like this rather than harp on about Russiagate part 1000, whatever the Dem nominees are doing, Religious Freedoms etc etc.
> 
> I mean jesus christ in this report Alabama was cited as having the worst poverty in the 1st world!
> 
> https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-un-poverty-environmental-racism-743601
> 
> 
> 
> I mean fuck me!


I believe me and Reaper and possibly Tater discussed this but in some parts of the US it's literally 3rd world living conditions. People living on a dollar a day. The biggest poor demographic number wise are whites, especially in the South and the highest percentage are Blacks, in the South and major cities. 

Thing is nobody cares, people shit on the South and offer no help. As much as they talk about helping blacks, they don't do a thing to help them out. They just lump everyone together in a region and call them stupid, lazy people. 

For as much talk of helping the poor and this supposed "unity" and "privilege", it doesn't seem to apply to half of the Nation. The worst part is people pretend these people don't even exist. Help Blacks! Black Lives Matter! Not unless they share the same College as me, fuck the rest! I'm so privileged! All whites are privileged! Yes the ones sleeping under lice infested blankets, hungry and suffering from conditions found in the Third World are so privileged, indeedy doo! This isn't even touching on the South American slave labor force or people living in tents and squalor. :shrug

It's infuriating to see out of touch Politicians placate to everyone but the people who really need help. It's infuriating to go on Social Media to see out of touch retards spouting how good they are yet do nothing for anyone but themselves. I love my country but it's becoming a third world banana Republic more and more by the day. :crying:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*



Miss Sally said:


> We'll print more and more money and one day it will collapse on itself. The bankers and rich will be doing just dandy though. It's all part of the plan though, just you wait!


I believe it's going to happen in waves. 2007 was the first. There will be another and then another till Americans have nothing left. 

This may or may not be a serious thought (but it's not outside of the realm of possibility) that we can just hope that our neighbors who seem to be largely recession proof at this point take mercy on us and give us some of their crumbs when the mass collapse of the States happens and we have economic refugees rushing northward. 

The Average American already has 32% less wealth than they did in 2003, while the rich have 200% more wealth than they did in 2003. After the next predicted recession (which is coming soon) it'll be even more unequal.


----------



## InexorableJourney

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*

Just charge 100% Tax on all citizens income for 2 years.

Problem solved.



Sorry 20 years, I misread the 2000%


----------



## virus21

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*



Reaper said:


> The Average American already has 32% less wealth than they did in 2003, while the rich have 200% more wealth than they did in 2003. After the next predicted recession (which is coming soon) it'll be even more unequal.


And then we bring out the guillotines


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*

That's okay the rich will save us by creating tons of high paying jobs.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*



virus21 said:


> And then we bring out the guillotines


If only.

We're so divided that poor Americans will blame other poor Americans as to why they're poor. Don't worry, one of the Kardashians will tweet about it, along with the rest of the pretentious scabs of humanity known as celebs and the mega rich. Besides you cannot talk bad about the banks or the rich, it's against the rules.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*










Corporate debt always exceeds billions usually and that's normal.

Netflix alone has a debt over 20 billion most of it stolen from tax payers.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Real US debt levels could be a shocking 2,000% of GDP*



Miss Sally said:


> If only.
> 
> We're so divided that poor Americans will blame other poor Americans as to why they're poor. Don't worry, one of the Kardashians will tweet about it, along with the rest of the pretentious scabs of humanity known as celebs and the mega rich. Besides you cannot talk bad about the banks or the rich, it's against the rules.


Not to be a partisan hack but there's only one side that convinces people to punch down-- your life is crappy because an immigrant took your job or it got shipped to China, your health insurance is high because of sick and old people, your taxes are high because of poor people, that side constantly tells people that the rich and corporations are our saviors. 

They don't tell you that your job got outsourced even though the company made record profits and the CEO got a 8 digit bonus, they don't tell you that you insurance is high because of illegal price fixing, they don't tell you that your taxes are high because they pay nothing so the tax burden shifts to you. 40 years of economic analysis proves that trickle down economics is a joke that produces lower rates of GDP growth and higher deficits and there's only one side that preaches it more than they do their holy book.


----------



## CamillePunk

Ayyy, Tulsi did the Rubin Report.  






She's so far and away the best and most sane candidate the Democrats have, so of course she only polls at around 2%. :lol 

Good to hear her come out against third trimester abortions and open borders (and correctly pointing out that there are Democrats currently pushing for practically open borders policies, some of you like to gaslight on this).  Wasn't a fan of her answer on reparations, which is obviously a ludicrous and immoral idea, but doesn't sound like she's serious about it so whatever.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171121039172145152

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171121046201806850


----------



## CamillePunk

Elizabeth Warren in a nutshell. :lol Says one thing, does another.


----------



## CamillePunk

Looks like Bolton got fired for trying to sabotage the North Korea peace talks. :lol What a truly fiendish piece of human garbage. 

Suffice to say, Ben Shapiro is not taking the news of Bolton's departure as well as Jimmy Dore. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/north-carolina-republicans-chaz-beasley-interview.html

Pretty gross if true. Even if you didn't say there were no votes, they knew what they were doing was gross and they didn't care.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/north-carolina-republicans-chaz-beasley-interview.html
> 
> Pretty gross if true. Even if you didn't say there were no votes, they knew what they were doing was gross and they didn't care.


This kind of stuff happens a lot, even businesses do this stuff.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/north-carolina-republicans-chaz-beasley-interview.html
> 
> Pretty gross if true. Even if you didn't say there were no votes, they knew what they were doing was gross and they didn't care.
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of stuff happens a lot, even businesses do this stuff.
Click to expand...

I've no doubt.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


>


They arrest people for tweets and take people to court for jokes, this doesn't surprise me. :laugh:


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> They arrest people for tweets and take people to court for jokes, this doesn't surprise me. :laugh:


Thats Britain, this is Australia. Unless they do that too


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> Thats Britain, this is Australia. Unless they do that too


That's way weirder than, maybe they're following suit? :laugh:


----------



## yeahbaby!

Australia is becoming more and more of a police / nanny state. The country I grew up in here was more progressive, more innovative and enterprising. Now it bears no resemblance to that place.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Australia is becoming more and more of a police / nanny state. The country I grew up in here was more progressive, more innovative and enterprising. Now it bears no resemblance to that place.


Ours uses Google and other stuff to watch us, US secretly spying on it's citizens. I think more and more Governments are going to go this route. It's only going to increase.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1172183389631328261
This guy is dumb as a brick. :lol Yeesh.


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1172183389631328261
> This guy is dumb as a brick. :lol Yeesh.


It's a circular logic that say's a Klobuchar or Biden are good GE candidates,most people are barely paying attention yet the punditry class talk's about how electable they are so people say they are electable in polls. Biden's cognitive function's are on full display in a 10 person debate where he can just rest for long periods of time,his verbal mishaps will only get worse with less people in the debate and less time to hide.


----------



## Draykorinee

Anyone watching Biden right now should see he needs to stop campaigning and seek medical help because his faculties are failing.


----------



## virus21

> The hashtag #BoycottABC was trending on Twitter after the network aired a political advert featuring a burning photo of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during the Democratic debate on Thursday night. Many Twitter users were outraged by the advert.
> 
> It shows the New York Democrat's photo burning away as Elizabeth Heng, a Republican activist from California, speaks about the "face of socialism and ignorance" and her father's experience in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> "Does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know the horror of socialism? My father was minutes from death in Cambodia before a forced marriage saved his life. That's socialism: Forced obedience, starvation," Heng says, showing images of life under the communist regime.
> 
> "Mine is a face of freedom. My skin is not white, I'm not outrageous, racist, nor socialist. I'm a Republican."
> 
> 
> The advert was paid for by Heng's PAC, New Faces GOP, which promises to fight against "extreme, socialist Democrats" and to "elevate the next generation of Republicans so that we can not only survive as a party, but expand beyond the boundaries we've set for ourselves."
> 
> Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist, hit back on Twitter after the ad ran. "Republicans are running TV ads setting pictures of me on fire to convince people they aren't racist. Life is weird!" she tweeted.
> 
> "Know that this wasn't an ad for young conservatives of color - that was the pretense. What you just watched was a love letter to the GOP's white supremacist case."
> 
> Heng responded: "Not Republicans. Me. Are you really calling me a racist @aoc? I'm calling all Democrats out for supporting an evil ideology. Or are you just in Congress to hang out with celebrities and tweet out ridiculous ideas like the green new deal?"
> 
> AOC ocasio cortez fire photo ad socialism
> The photo of New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez burning during the anti-socialism advert by Elizabeth Heng of the "New Faces GOP" PAC.
> NEW FACES GOP
> Addressing the network's Twitter account, the writer Jack Wallen tweeted: "You really screwed the pooch on this one. That ad was violent, disgusting, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. Just because some politician paid you to air an ad, doesn't mean you should kick your morals to the curb for a payoff. #BoycottABC is the result."
> 
> 
> Not everyone agreed. Andrew Surabian, a GOP strategist and former special assistant to President Donald Trump, tweeted: "A Cambodian woman makes an ad highlighting the Cambodian Genocide/the horrors of socialism and @AOC has the audacity to call it 'racist?' Instead of responding to the content of the ad, #BoycottABC is now trying to bully tv networks into not running it. Wonder why that is?"


https://www.newsweek.com/boycott-abc-trends-twitter-ocasio-cortez-aoc-ad-fire-photo-1459120?utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=NewsweekFacebookSF&utm_medium=Social&fbclid=IwAR0Zz_1Z6qfAJbuBwZwXFGg5zm_JdwVv_ABVxmnzJhYtUcwvPluJkfKeaxs



> HOUSTON, Tx. — A Texas state representative’s tweet to Beto O’Rourke that his AR-15 “is ready for you” has been removed by Twitter. The social media giant concluded it broke the site’s rules “when it came to threats and violence,” a Twitter spokesman told CBS News.
> 
> Briscoe Cain, who represents a district west of Houston, tweeted at O’Rourke during the third Democratic presidential debate in Houston.
> 
> O’Rourke has endorsed a mandatory buyback plan for assault weapons in the wake of the shooting in his hometown of El Paso that killed 22 people.
> 
> “If the high impact, high velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body, because it was designed to do that, so that you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers,” O’Rourke said during the debate. “When we see that being used against children, and in Odessa [Texas, site of a shooting that followed the one in El Paso and left seven people dead], I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15, and that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa and Midland, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time, hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
> 
> The debate audience erupted in some of the loudest cheers of the night by the time O’Rourke finished. He continued by saying that he came up with his plan by “listening to the people in this country.” He added that he went to a gun show in Arkansas where, he said, “You might be surprised. There was some common ground there, folks who said, ‘I would willingly give that up, cut it to pieces, I don’t need this weapon to hunt, to defend myself.”‘
> 
> Although his gun control plan goes further than those of many of his fellow Democrats, the other candidates on stage praised the former lawmaker. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar said, “I so appreciate what the congressman’s been doing” and California Senator Kamala Harris said “Beto, God love you for standing so courageously in the midst of that tragedy.”
> 
> But O’Rourke has earned the ire of many on the right and gun enthusiasts. Including, it seems, Cain. Cain tweeted “My AR is ready for you Robert Francis” shortly after O’Rourke gave his answer, using O’Rourke’s given name.
> 
> During the debate, Cain’s tweet went viral, with thousands of replies. When one person asked “Did you, uh, just threaten to shoot a former member of Congress and current candidate for president?” Cain responded “You’re an idiot.”
> 
> After the debate, O’Rourke retweeted Cain and commented “This is a death threat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn’t own an AR-15—and neither should anyone else.
> 
> 
> Beto O'Rourke
> ✔
> @BetoORourke
> This is a death threat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn't own an AR-15—and neither should anyone else.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> 180K
> 11:02 PM - Sep 12, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 55.2K people are talking about this
> Other Twitter users posted that they had reported it and two people on the O’Rourke campaign told CBS News they checked in about it with the FBI.
> 
> Two hours after it was posted, Cain’s tweet was removed. Cain responded, “You’re a child Robert Francis” at O’Rourke.
> 
> CBS News has reached out to Cain’s office for comment.
> 
> 
> ??????? ????
> ✔
> @BriscoeCain
> You’re a child Robert Francis https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1172359875093061632 …
> 
> Beto O'Rourke
> ✔
> @BetoORourke
> This is a death threat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn't own an AR-15—and neither should anyone else.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> 13.6K
> 11:20 PM - Sep 12, 2019 · Deer Park, TX
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 22.4K people are talking about this
> At a post-debate watch party, O’Rourke told CBS News Cain’s comment “sure reads like” a threat to him.
> 
> 
> Tim Perry
> ✔
> @tperry518
> Responding to Texas State Rep. Briscoe Cain saying "My AR is ready for you" @BetoORourke says "I think it;s a really irresponsible thing for him to do... we are a nation of laws and if that (mandatory buyback) ends up becoming the law.. we expect people to comply w/ it"
> 
> Embedded video
> 2,148
> 12:30 AM - Sep 13, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 802 people are talking about this
> “I think it’s a really irresponsible thing for him to do, especially somebody who is a public servant and in a position of public trust to be sending that kind of message to this country, we are a nation of laws, and if that ends up becoming the law of the United States of America, then we expect the people of this country to comply with it,” O’Rourke said.
> 
> Timothy Perry contributed to this report.


https://www.ozarksfirst.com/local-news/texas-state-representative-tweets-at-beto-orourke-my-ar-15-is-ready-for-you/


----------



## CamillePunk

Completely absurd to call that a threat. Beto was the one threatening violence. There is nothing threatening about responding to a threat of violence by informing someone that you are armed. That's not a threat, it's a very prudent warning.


----------



## Kabraxal

Fuck Francis, that dirty tyrant wannabe shitbag. But saying that, thank you exposing the democratic field for their willingness to support and inability to condemn those unconstitutional ideas. Fuck the democrats completely. 

This week has been illuminating between both sides calling for more gov’t control in idiotic ways very few sane voices speaking out. For anyone paying attention, you should be condemning the entirety of our growing tyrannical leadership. Instead, just going to hear two idiotic tribes screaming that their walking piece of human filth is better than the other wide’s worthless wastes of oxygen. People are fucking stupid.


----------



## CamillePunk

Pretty cool to see Kyle live his dream here.  Pretty good questions, too!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Bolton may be gone, but his legacy lives on.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173434704302751744
If Trump and Tulsi were my parents and they got a divorce, I'd choose to live with mom. In Hawaii.


----------



## Draykorinee

So we're back to pushing Kavanaugh and sexual assault.

:bunk

I really hope no Democrat even touches this story, but you know they will.


----------



## CamillePunk

Well Democrats created the story, so... :lol


----------



## Reaper




----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


>


----------



## deepelemblues

The world cant allow oil supply to be disrupted 

The most important internationally traded commodity

If its production or shipment can be constrained without consequence by violence others will take note and eventually do the same with other products. It won't just be Saudi Arabia and oil companies that take a hit then

Violence preventing production and trade will do more damage economically and make the world more dangerous and likely to see wars starting than any amount of tariffs ever will


----------



## Draykorinee

Looks like Bolton got to Deep.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


>




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173051801270181893


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173051801270181893


And people want him to be president


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> And people want him to be president


99.99% of politicians are like this. 

Warren, the so-called Progressive sweetheart has been taking big donor money since 2016 and is currently rubbing shoulders with Clinton. Plus she's always voted in favor of War Budgets. Ergo why the MSM has her as the "substitute" for Bernie and why people (especially the demorat supporters) are being indoctrinated against doing "purity checks".


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> 99.99% of politicians are like this.
> 
> Warren, the so-called Progressive sweetheart has been taking big donor money since 2016 and is currently rubbing shoulders with Clinton. Plus she's always voted in favor of War Budgets. Ergo why the MSM has her as the "substitute" for Bernie and why people (especially the demorat supporters) are being indoctrinated against doing "purity checks".


Oh I know, I just like pointing it out.


----------



## Reaper

Omar truthers be like: 










Yup. "Evidence" doesn't need to have any standards when you're a partisan hack.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Looks like she's just exercising those 2nd amendment rights to me.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173723701373591552
I'd vote for her.


----------



## Draykorinee

Ben Shapiro suggesting that a person couldn't possibly have committed a sexual assault because no one has described his penis.

:LIGHTS

What has happened to the golden child?


----------



## Strike Force

Draykorinee said:


> Ben Shapiro suggesting that a person couldn't possibly have committed a sexual assault because no one has described his penis.


I used to really like Ben Shapiro even though I'm more liberal than conservative, but I gave up on him last year. He's lost the plot and started saying stuff that I don't think he genuinely believes, which is a change for him.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> 99.99% of politicians are like this.
> 
> Warren, the so-called Progressive sweetheart has been taking big donor money since 2016 and is currently rubbing shoulders with Clinton. Plus she's always voted in favor of War Budgets. Ergo why the MSM has her as the "substitute" for Bernie and why people (especially the demorat supporters) are being indoctrinated against doing "purity checks".


Remember when people were acting like big tech was all Left and kosher and then it comes out they're some of the biggest political donators around? I still laugh about people thinking there are just and good mega corporations around! :laugh:


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173723701373591552
> I'd vote for her.


Going Beto is quite disappointing from her

...Okay no it's not, she's Luap Nor with tits so this kind of desperate lashing out to get attention had to come eventually

The question is will she burn an American flag or talk about the ZOG in one last attempt to get people to notice her before she drops out of the race :hmmm


----------



## Ygor

I know this is from Glenn Beck but it is worth a watch as it gives history on our relationship with Saudi Arabia and the petrodollar.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173928676859072512
Interesting. I saw this tweet was live the other day. I wonder why she deleted it? Perhaps the people condemning me with such certainty for daring to raise questions about her will provide an explanation and put my mind to rest.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


>


:larry

Ehh.. It's not really a great burn. Lot's of my friends don't like giving blow jobs. There's lot's of people who don't enjoy receiving or giving oral sex and lots of ways to make someone lose their mind in bed.

It's just so basic that is may as well be "I'm rubber and you're glue!". i expected more.


----------



## CamillePunk

That Molyneux tweet is out of context. :lol He was self-admittedly trolling women for a spell due to all of the misandrist criticism he receives from women for daring to care about men's issues.


An interesting article from the perspective of a libertarian about Tulsi Gabbard.  

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/tulsi-gabbard-taxation-is-theft/



> Tulsi Gabbard: “Taxation Is Theft” (When…)
> 
> Tulsi Gabbard is, I think it’s safe to say, the pragmatic libertarians’ favorite in the Democratic primary.
> 
> Sure, she’s not a libertarian. That’s granted. There are plenty of policy positions she holds that simply don’t overlap with the libertarian position at all. It would take more than my two hands to recite them. Some of these are understandably deal-killers depending on one’s focus, and many don’t even care much about Democratic primaries.
> 
> But she’s got a laser sharp focus on the issues of overlap as her major concerns:
> – A pro-peace, anti-war foreign policy that’s at least more pure than her competitors’ and undeniably smart and informed by both intelligence and experience.
> – A support for civil liberties and transparency from a place of actual sincerity.
> – A willingness to call out wrong as she sees it regardless of where it originates.
> 
> And, let’s face it… look at her competition. It’s one thing to say she’s not libertarian enough for libertarian support in a general election. I’m sure that even if Marianne blessed her with a miracle and she somehow became the nominee, the eventual libertarian candidate would have her beat on libertarian cred. But who else is running in the race she’s currently in that could hold a candle to her?
> 
> Just having her in the debates is an easy way to show how awful her competition is on issues that Democrats are supposed to be good on because she’s actually willing to call them out. We all want to see her torch other Democrats on that stage the way she decimated Harris in the last debate she participated in. And it was just yesterday on Twitter that she wrote ‘Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters. Having our country act as Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “America First.”‘… which just warms my heart.
> 
> This weekend, Tulsi held a townhall in Ankeny, IA where she took questions from the audience. One of those audience members is a man named Seth (God bless you, Seth). He asked her about the good old libertarian bumper sticker slogan of “taxation is theft”.
> 
> Her response deserves more context than the first sentence that can fit on a meme, and is as follows…
> 
> Seth: “Hello. My name is Seth.”
> 
> Tulsi: “Hi Seth.”
> 
> Seth: “I’m one of the libertarians in this coalition that you’re building. And I want to say that you’ve already sold me on your thing. I’m voting for you, Tulsi 2020. We’re going.”
> 
> Tulsi: “Thank you.”
> 
> Seth: “But as a libertarian in this election space, I’m curious as to what each candidate thinks. I wonder… do you have any ethical problems with taxation? Whether or not it’s theft or… whether or not it’s permissible even if it is theft, or… just where are your thoughts on this subject?”
> 
> Tulsi: “Taxation is theft when our taxes are being used toward things that do not serve our interests.
> 
> Y’all work hard every day. When you pay those taxes, you should have faith and trust that they will be used for things like making sure you’ve got safe roads to drive on. To make sure that your kids are getting a good education in these public schools. To make sure that your firefighters have what they need in order to make sure your house doesn’t burn down if something happens. There are basic needs that we have in this country, and our taxes are meant to serve those needs.
> 
> Not to fund needless layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy. Certainly not to fund these wasteful wars and nuclear weapons that are making us in the world less safe. This gets to the heart of what I’m talking about here.
> 
> It is about fiscal responsibility. And it is about accountability.
> 
> And making sure that our hard-earned taxpayer dollars are redirected away from this kind of waste and abuse and used to serve the interests of our people.”
> 
> Obviously, there are issues that libertarians could find with this. Taxation is theft “when”? “Public” schools? How would she “serve the interests of our people”, and is there a more effective solution than government? Is government really serving our interests at all when it acts outside of a role that protects life, liberty, and property – and what does that entail compared to her plans? That kind of thing that fills the headspace of all “real” libertarians rent-free. These are, of course, real questions and concerns. But…
> 
> She acknowledged a negative moral component to excessive taxation and implied that it’s nature was involuntary. She may have agreed taxation was theft only when the ROI was in the red, but in some ways that’s in line with classical liberal thought – even if her cost/benefit analysis on when government is serving our interests enough to justify some degree of theft is in reality worlds apart.
> 
> When painting a picture of the kinds of things worth the necessity of taxation, she described muh roads, schools, and firefighters rather than expansive welfare states in mixed economies (even if she does advocate for some of those same policies elsewhere). She spoke against bureaucracy and war, and for fiscal responsibility and government accountability. It’s hard to imagine some of her competition even using words like ‘fiscal responsibility’ for lip service without bursting into flames.
> 
> As a libertarian who believes taxation is theft, and a classical liberal who believes that there are things worse than theft, maybe I’m too sympathetic when giving credit for what I view as a great answer (politically speaking) that threads the needle she needs to thread for her coalition brilliantly. Maybe I’m not as critical as I would be if she were running in another party – but isn’t that the point?
> 
> I’d ask the following, though: Is there another Democrat running who could have possibly given a better answer from a liberty point of view?
> 
> Her answer can be viewed here, roughly 35 minutes in.


Her moral argument is of course severely flawed for a multitude of reasons, but as a libertarian there is a lot to like about Tulsi.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174047410269687808
Imagine being a man and voting for this woman. :lol This isn't gonna play well for her if she goes against Trump.


----------



## MrMister

Michael Douglas got cancer from all the pussy he ate :brady6.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173781504767483905
How the fuck is this not front page news? :lol And to think people were shitting on Kavanaugh for getting upset about people trying to destroy his life with lies. Good on every single Republican who stood by this man when the circus was raging, regardless of what I think of his positions, I don't stand for shit like this.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173928676859072512
> Interesting. I saw this tweet was live the other day. I wonder why she deleted it? Perhaps the people condemning me with such certainty for daring to raise questions about her will provide an explanation and put my mind to rest.


Pity she isn't your pal Molyneaux, then it would've been 'out of context' right?

:heston

In all truthiness though, If the tweet has been around since 2013, why have the conspiracy right wingers only just seized upon it as irrefutable truth? Surely a smoking gun such as this should've sealed her fate already...


----------



## Draykorinee

Christ its like birther all over again.

Don't tell anyone that FDR married Eleanor Roosevelt, proof that they were brother and sister!!!!one!

I better hope my wife doesn't tweet out happy birthday to my dad, imagine that.

Happy birthday Daddy Dray

Wait, her husband is Dray...they're brother and sister!

(Dray isn't my real surname btw)


----------



## Reaper

Isn't "Raising Questions" the hallmark of a slanderer because they know that by just adding the "?" at the end, they can spread whatever lie they want? 

It's possible that there's no truth or credible motive there at all right?

Asking for a friend.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> That Molyneux tweet is out of context. :lol He was self-admittedly trolling women for a spell due to all of the misandrist criticism he receives from women for daring to care about men's issues.
> 
> 
> An interesting article from the perspective of a libertarian about Tulsi Gabbard.
> 
> https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/tulsi-gabbard-taxation-is-theft/
> 
> Her moral argument is of course severely flawed for a multitude of reasons, but as a libertarian there is a lot to like about Tulsi.


Who else here is a libertarian other than you 

If Tulsi's reproduction of circa 2005 antiwar.com and 2008 Luap Nor IT'S ALL OUR FAULT prostrate massages hit your gland so good that you can accept her rooting around up in your ass on other things like a conventional Democrat statist (so all the way up to your earlobes, these days), more power to you. Well, less, since the State will have its fingers up your ass all the way to your earlobes. But at least they won't be _Saudi Arabian_ or _Israeli_ fingers! :bearer


----------



## MrMister

I'm a terrible person for having no sympathy for Kavanaugh. I mean even total douchebags like him shouldn't be destroyed by accusations, but I kind of want him to be. :side:


----------



## yeahbaby!

Draykorinee said:


> Christ its like birther all over again.
> 
> Don't tell anyone that FDR married Eleanor Roosevelt, proof that they were brother and sister!!!!one!
> 
> I better hope my wife doesn't tweet out happy birthday to my dad, imagine that.
> 
> Happy birthday Daddy Dray
> 
> Wait, her husband is Dray...they're brother and sister!
> 
> (Dray isn't my real surname btw)


Yeah Baby is my real name, changed it by deed poll when Jim died. He'll live on in my name and heart.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Christ its like birther all over again.
> 
> Don't tell anyone that FDR married Eleanor Roosevelt, proof that they were brother and sister!!!!one!
> 
> I better hope my wife doesn't tweet out happy birthday to my dad, imagine that.
> 
> Happy birthday Daddy Dray
> 
> Wait, her husband is Dray...they're brother and sister!
> 
> (Dray isn't my real surname btw)


One day you'll respond with at least one iota of substance, I'm sure, but it seems that that day is not today.  Betrays your bias and lack of regard for the facts.


----------



## Reaper

Remember folks. This guy is also "just raising questions". 

Whether the questions themselves are insane or point to some sort of basis which points to prejudicial opinion cannot be questioned as long as one is simply "asking questions". 

The 'truth will eventually vindicate' them. This is how this goes.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174479410390548480
Yeah but don't worry, if the Democrats win then everyone who comes here illegally might have to pay a fine, if they can even be found or discovered in the first place. Totally not open borders though! Don't be preposterous.


----------



## Miss Sally

So a pic just surfaced of Pretty Boy Justin in black face, he said he's supposed to be Aladdin but ehh.. that's straight up black face. 










Should have known when he was playing dress up everywhere he went. The excuses for him are great, they're trying to say he was just in college.. well he was teaching, he was 29 in the pic.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> So a pic just surfaced of Pretty Boy Justin in black face, he said he's supposed to be Aladdin but ehh.. that's straight up black face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should have known when he was playing dress up everywhere he went. The excuses for him are great, they're trying to say he was just in college.. well he was teaching, he was 29 in the pic.


2001 is not "that" long ago. It's not the 50's or 60's. It's not when racism was part of the social landscape of Canada. 2001 was "woke" in that racism was talked about in schools, it was a major talking about. People weren't dumb back then. Trudeau did what he did intentionally. His posse was just as racist as him because clearly no one told him that it was wrong. He was an educator in a position of power. There's NO excuse. He was, is and probably always will be a racist.

I was in Canadian High Schools between 1996 and 1999. We knew what blackface was. This guy was a teacher. 

Trudeau Supporters are just as bad as Trump Supporters because Trudeua and Trump are just two opposite sides of the same trashy coin who seem to attract those who are attracted to cults of personality.

Neoliberalism doesn't care about racism. It's one of their tools to advance their own political agendas by using browns and blacks as mere tools. This is why we need our own spaces (not segregated), but resources to take ownership of our politics instead of continuing to bind ourselves to so-called saviors who come to our spaces begging for our support with their cunning smiles.

Don't be fooled by the next politician that says "we care about you as a minority". They're all populist snakes.


----------



## yeahbaby!

The California Wall Sample is a great win-win for Trump and America. Especially since Mexico is paying just like he said.

:heston



Miss Sally said:


> So a pic just surfaced of Pretty Boy Justin in black face, he said he's supposed to be Aladdin but ehh.. that's straight up black face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should have known when he was playing dress up everywhere he went. The excuses for him are great, they're trying to say he was just in college.. well he was teaching, he was 29 in the pic.


Adding to that he appears to be choking that poor woman. Is she still around today?


----------



## CamillePunk

Miss Sally said:


> So a pic just surfaced of Pretty Boy Justin in black face, he said he's supposed to be Aladdin but ehh.. that's straight up black face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should have known when he was playing dress up everywhere he went. The excuses for him are great, they're trying to say he was just in college.. well he was teaching, he was 29 in the pic.


Imagine if non-right wing politicians ever actually got vetted. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> 2001 is not "that" long ago. It's not the 50's or 60's. It's not when racism was part of the social landscape of Canada. 2001 was "woke" in that racism was talked about in schools, it was a major talking about. People weren't dumb back then. Trudeau did what he did intentionally. His posse was just as racist as him because clearly no one told him that it was wrong. He was an educator in a position of power. There's NO excuse. He was, is and probably always will be a racist.
> 
> I was in Canadian High Schools between 1996 and 1999. We knew what blackface was. This guy was a teacher.
> 
> Trudeau Supporters are just as bad as Trump Supporters because Trudeua and Trump are just two opposite sides of the same trashy coin who seem to attract those who are attracted to cults of personality.
> 
> Neoliberalism doesn't care about racism. It's one of their tools to advance their own political agendas by using browns and blacks as mere tools. This is why we need our own spaces (not segregated), but resources to take ownership of our politics instead of continuing to bind ourselves to so-called saviors who come to our spaces begging for our support with their cunning smiles.
> 
> Don't be fooled by the next politician that says "we care about you as a minority". They're all populist snakes.


I haven't linked it because unsure but there's supposed to be a highschool pic of him in blackface. He's been doing it a while. Not to mention didn't he hamper an investigation into a company? Some of the excuses for him are "He gets into his roles" and "It's just a costume party." :laugh:




yeahbaby! said:


> Adding to that he appears to be choking that poor woman. Is she still around today?


I was going to joke about this because current year this is totally something people would be saying isn't right. Patriarchy hands!


----------



## MrMister

So much for Justin being the woke boyfriend. This is pretty funny.

So is he really not being crucified? :heston


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> So much for Justin being the woke boyfriend. This is pretty funny.
> 
> So is he really not being crucified? :heston


Kind of but not really. According to the person who told me about this who follows Canadian Politics and has family that works in Politics. (Also is Canadian), it seems Americans broke the news first so it's unsure how long the Canadian MSM has been sitting on this.

They also tried to lighten it by calling it "brownface" when clearly it's black or at least very, very dark brown. I have dark brown relatives and they don't show up this color in B/W photos. Some of his loyalists are taking to Twitter defending him saying it was a party, don't be offended by Halloween etc. don't be outraged. Yadda Yadda which is ironic coming from that woke crowd. 

Do as I say, not as my woke boyfriend does, indeed! :x

We'll know in the weeks coming and during the election. I don't expect his voters to drop him though because living by your own code of morality is a lot harder than preaching it.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> So much for Justin being the woke boyfriend. This is pretty funny.
> 
> So is he really not being crucified? :heston


Nope. His cult of personality is as powerful as Trump's. 

He could shoot an immigrant child, chop his body parts and sell them and he would still retain his voters.

I feel vindicated though because I've been talking about what kind of a fake asshole he is and has been for years now. 
@Miss Sally ; I'm aware of all of his scandals. This is why I keep comparing him to Trump. He's a PoS with followers that worship him like crazy.

Hey, even serial killers have people who fall in love with them and follow them to death. All cults of personality tend to attract those kinds of people. Charismatic leaders are no different. They're a different kind of psychopath tho.



> They also tried to lighten it by calling it "brownface" when clearly it's black or at least very, very dark brown. I have dark brown relatives and they don't show up this color in B/W photos. Some of his loyalists are taking to Twitter defending him saying it was a party, don't be offended by Halloween etc. don't be outraged. Yadda Yadda which is ironic coming from that woke crowd.


Once you realize that the Neoliberal crowd and the anti-racist crowd aren't the same group of people, you'll realize why he has so many people defending him. Neoliberals base their entire politics around exceptions and those exceptions are exactly what you see when people they "like" fail "purity checks". It's because their politics aren't pure and never will be. For them race issues are based around their limited understanding of it, and since they're already followers of cults of personality, they follow the tune of the Dear Leader and not their own principled politics. Neoliberals and even liberals are not principled .. This has been evidenced time and time again.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Nope. His cult of personality is as powerful as Trump's.
> 
> He could shoot an immigrant child, chop his body parts and sell them and he would still retain his voters.
> 
> I feel vindicated though because I've been talking about what kind of a fake asshole he is and has been for years now.
> @Miss Sally ; I'm aware of all of his scandals. This is why I keep comparing him to Trump. He's a PoS with followers that worship him like crazy.
> 
> Hey, even serial killers have people who fall in love with them and follow them to death. All cults of personality tend to attract those kinds of people. Charismatic leaders are no different. They're a different kind of psychopath tho.


Indeedy doo, we talked about Captain Wokeness before, seems we were correct about him.

Here's what I think will happen..

Outrage on mostly American outlets, Canadian News spinning it, softening the blow.

Facebook/twitter slowly removing talks about this from their services. Trending of the issue will be taken down even though it's a hot topic. Shadow bans on people linking the pic due to "Terms of Service Violations".

Social Media rearranging, comments defending him getting top comments despite not being liked all that much. SM input that's positive used to spin it further that Justin isn't bad.

European, Canadian and American "Left" coming out and blaming trolls, bots, nazis, alt right. Talking about this furthers "a scary and nefarious alt-right agenda", "They want you talking about this so it can erase the good Justin's done", "Justin is the leader of the West, this is being used by Putin to cover up Russia's wrong doings". The list will go on.

Positive spin will pop up, we'll hear things like how this is a positive and shows that Justin has grown as a person and how this has let him become a better leader who loves diversity. My guess it will lead to an apology tour and Justin "baring his soul" and how it changed his life. How this shouldn't be used to ruin someone but as a teaching example we can all learn from.

Fear narrative will popup and full on suppression will begin. "Vote for Justin, we cannot let those nasty Conservatives win!" It will be spun that voting for him is your only real choice. People will want to believe Warchief Wokeness is so good that they'll swallow it all down and defend his racism even harder.

Here's some food for thought, only me, you, CP and MrMister have talked about this really. Sure more will pop in but it will be quiet. now if it was Trump that did this, how fast would this thread be filled up? :hmmm

You're absolutely right about the cult of personality. Bet people were wishing it was Trump :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

Not sure equating Trump and Trudeau is relevant, the Canadian PM is barely talked about here in the UK whereas Trump is front and centre all the time.

Either way, Black face is wrong, JT knew it was wrong at the time and now hes saying he regrets it. Its bullshit and he should be crucified. However, just like if any world leader did this, what the fuck can anyone do?


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Not sure equating Trump and Trudeau is relevant, the Canadian PM is barely talked about here in the UK whereas Trump is front and centre all the time.
> 
> Either way, Black face is wrong, JT knew it was wrong at the time and now hes saying he regrets it. Its bullshit and he should be crucified. However, just like if any world leader did this, what the fuck can anyone do?


And it begins!

Not equally talked about, no but if it was Trump, people who don't post in this section would still be flocking to it even though Justin has been in the American media a lot and in Political discussions. There's no denying that the coverage would be vastly different if it was Trump, even if Justin is one of the most fawned over and talked about Leaders. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

The comparison with regards to their rabid followers and cults of personality is perfectly valid and that's the comparison I was making. 

In terms of politics, it's more fair to compare Trudeau to Warren. Both fake progressives using "leftist" talking points while supporting neoliberal/conservative economic policies, sucking up to big donors and tending to prefer corporate rights over people's rights.

Heck, he even has a conservative mindset with regards to gays where he retained the homophobic "gays can't donate blood" laws and only changed them slightly (just shortened the deferral period instead of undoing it entirely). 

Trudeau is a PoS. He's scum. There's no reason to soften the blows for him.


----------



## Tag89

wasn't his dad best mates with castro

that's got to be a bit weird, when your dad's best mate is someone who the yanks across the border were trying to assassinate for 50 odd years


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Trudeau is a PoS. He's scum. There's no reason to soften the blows for him.


Yup, I certainly wouldn't try to do that, he's an idiot and a dangerous one at that.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> The comparison with regards to their rabid followers and cults of personality is perfectly valid and that's the comparison I was making.
> 
> In terms of politics, it's more fair to compare Trudeau to Warren. Both fake progressives using "leftist" talking points while supporting neoliberal/conservative economic policies, sucking up to big donors and tending to prefer corporate rights over people's rights.
> 
> Heck, he even has a conservative mindset with regards to gays where he retained the homophobic "gays can't donate blood" laws and only changed them slightly (just shortened the deferral period instead of undoing it entirely).
> 
> Trudeau is a PoS. He's scum. There's no reason to soften the blows for him.


Ok cannot remember who but wasn't Warren the Politican that was an admirer of the Ottomans?


----------



## Reaper

Tag89 said:


> wasn't his dad best mates with castro
> 
> that's got to be a bit weird, when your dad's best mate is someone who the yanks across the border were trying to assassinate for 50 odd years


That makes it worse too because Trudeau was literally raised in a household that was full of diplomats and diplomatic ties ... not some rural farmland where he was never exposed to people from other cultures. 

I have a theory ... maybe him being raised around different cultures gave him the wrong impression and it fed into his cosplay fetish ... where instead of recognizing that people were wearing clothes from their culture, he thought that they were all wearing costumes instead .. 

Oh shit. I might be onto something here.



Miss Sally said:


> Ok cannot remember who but wasn't Warren the Politican that was an admirer of the Ottomans?


I never even heard about that, but admiring the Ottomans :kobelol

That's almost as bad as the people who admire the Romans and Vikings lol. Sounds like Inceldom at its worst.

(any individual living in modern society looking up to any culture of the past is just gross to me).


----------



## MrMister

Justin Trudeau, racist cosplayer I love it :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> That makes it worse too because Trudeau was literally raised in a household that was full of diplomats and diplomatic ties ... not some rural farmland where he was never exposed to people from other cultures.
> 
> I have a theory ... maybe him being raised around different cultures gave him the wrong impression and it fed into his cosplay fetish ... where instead of recognizing that people were wearing clothes from their culture, he thought that they were all wearing costumes instead ..
> 
> Oh shit. I might be onto something here.
> 
> 
> 
> I never even heard about that, but admiring the Ottomans :kobelol
> 
> That's almost as bad as the people who admire the Romans and Vikings lol. Sounds like Inceldom at its worst.
> 
> (any individual living in modern society looking up to any culture of the past is just gross to me).


I admire certain Empires of the past for their accomplishments etc, for example the Roman Empire achieved things that was unheard of that time. They weren't good people though over all but I'd not dismiss their good ideas nor accomplishments. There are some aspects of the Ottoman Empire that are interesting but they're one of the worst. I love history and reading up on ancient civilizations, you have to look at the good and bad though! :laugh: I cannot remember if was her or not so until I'm sure won't go into my theory. 

Justin seems like one of those people who confuse fetishize with respect and admiration. For instance, the simplest example would be "I have a sexual relations with (insert group here) so therefore, I'm not racist and support that group!"

I don't think he understands any of the people he cosplays as, just has a fetish for their culture and a need to consume it in any possible way.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> I admire certain Empires of the past for their accomplishments etc, for example the Roman Empire achieved things that was unheard of that time. They weren't good people though over all but I'd not dismiss their good ideas nor accomplishments. There are some aspects of the Ottoman Empire that are interesting but they're one of the worst. I love history and reading up on ancient civilizations, you have to look at the good and bad though! :laugh: I cannot remember if was her or not so until I'm sure won't go into my theory.


Admire the past for its accomplisments. Do not demand that their methods or ways become a part of the modern world because with the good there was always the bad and everything bad back then was significantly worse than the bad of today in every way imaginable :cudi 




> Justin seems like one of those people who confuse fetishize with respect and admiration. For instance, the simplest example would be "I have a sexual relations with (insert group here) so therefore, I'm not racist and support that group!"
> 
> I don't think he understands any of the people he cosplays as, just has a fetish for their culture and a need to consume it in any possible way.


There's a phrase for this anti-racists have been trying to make people understand for several years and it gets resistance from the very crowd that Trudeau belongs to. 

It's Cultural Appropriation. 

I love it when people consume my culture "respectfully" with grace. Trudeau and a lot of others do it for personal profit -- whether it's for real money or social currency.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Something that should be noted about Trudeau and the media up here in Canada is that he gave 600 million dollars to media outlets. So , you can imagine why that story isn't being pushed nearly as hard as say , something Trump might have said that could have potentially be offensive.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Something that should be noted about Trudeau and the media up here in Canada is that he gave 600 million dollars to media outlets. So , you can imagine why that story isn't being pushed nearly as hard as say , something might have Trump said that could have potentially be offensive.


You'll get no argument from me for the partisan hackery on display from the neoliberal supporters of the liberal party. It's blatant. It's obvious. In fact, I'm seeing them make excuses just like Trump supporters do for his shenanigans. 

Same people who spend endless hours talking about racism, cultural appropriation etc etc. Total radio silence on Trudeau (and I'm talking about Canadians here. I don't really expect Americans to care and be as vocal because truthfully Trudeau's shit doesn't impact them).


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> You'll get no argument from me for the partisan hackery on display from the neoliberal supporters of the liberal party. It's blatant. It's obvious. In fact, I'm seeing them make excuses just like Trump supporters do for his shenanigans.
> 
> Same people who spend endless hours talking about racism, cultural appropriation etc etc. Total radio silence on Trudeau (and I'm talking about Canadians here. I don't really expect Americans to care and be as vocal because truthfully Trudeau's shit doesn't impact them).


Didnt you know?Only leftists are allowed to be racist?


----------



## Stephen90

Trudeau is basically a Canadian left wing Bush. A dumbass who was born into wealth and doesn't know what he's doing. Someone who living off there Father's legacy.


----------



## Stinger Fan

They also uncovered 2 more blackface photos of Trudeau....:lol


----------



## DOPA

To be fair, I've heard plenty of the more left wing posters on here criticize Trudeau quite heavily for his constant virtue signalling and ridiculous appropriation of cultures for political and social brownie points. Trudeau being a twat seems to have a general consensus.

This latest scandal does not surprise me for the simple fact that he likes to play dress up a lot :lol. He only had to take it a step further to be completely offensive.


----------



## Reaper

:kobelol


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> They also uncovered 2 more blackface photos of Trudeau....:lol


Jesus was this guy on crack back then?

I bet Melania still dreams of him in her own bed at night.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tag89 said:


> wasn't his dad best mates with castro


Actually, his dad was best friends with Pierre Trudeau!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

How often was he going costume parties that he had three different incidences of blackface?



> But he declined to say definitively whether there were more instances of him wearing dark makeup. He did not remember each instance, he said, because his privilege gave him a blind spot on the issue.


Make that a minimum of three blackface incidents.


----------



## CamillePunk

Dude was nearly 30 and going around in full-body black makeup portraying black stereotypes on multiple occasions. This was in the early 2000's. I guarantee you he still wins the female vote. The Karen Council will look the other way on this matter, because cheekbones and fame and power.


----------



## yeahbaby!

He'll still win the Melania vote.

Has Trump tweeted about this yet? Can't wait.


----------



## Miss Sally

2 Ton 21 said:


> How often was he going costume parties that he had three different incidences of blackface?
> 
> 
> 
> Make that a minimum of three blackface incidents.


Three that we know of, might be more but if there are, you can bet damage control and the Canadian MSM will be on it to get to it before it leaks.



CamillePunk said:


> Dude was nearly 30 and going around in full-body black makeup portraying black stereotypes on multiple occasions. This was in the early 2000's. I guarantee you he still wins the female vote. The Karen Council will look the other way on this matter, because cheekbones and fame and power.


Karen Council is full of fake wokeness, always getting exposed for racist behavior themselves and looking the other way when people they support and admire do racist stuff. Justin could break character, start goose stepping and dressing up as a Nazi and his female votes would probably increase! :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

This is fucking surreal. :lol


----------



## Tag89

it's the hands that get me every time i see the photo

the face is bad enough

the fact he went and did the hands as well is just :mj4

it's like he looked in the mirror after he'd done his face and thought 'this isn't offensive enough, better over-do it to be sure'


----------



## Miss Sally

Tag89 said:


> it's the hands that get me every time i see the photo
> 
> the face is bad enough
> 
> the fact he went and did the hands as well is just :mj4
> 
> it's like he looked in the mirror after he'd done his face and thought 'this isn't offensive enough, better over-do it to be sure'


I was going to mention this but forgot! He went full on detailed, it's nuts!

Also there's a few more pics of him standing in that look next to a few I'm guessing Sikh men and he's 5 times darker than them. Total blackface.

Also there's a video with him at that game or concert whatever where he's in blackface and he's dancing around and it appears his shirt has bananas on it.. This is incredible! :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

My sister the SJW feminist anti-racist extrodinaire has forgiven asshole woke boyfriend. So have many other women on her feed as well as across Canada. His apology was "sincere" according to them ... 

The Cult of Personality thrives. Trudeau supporters are just like Trump supporters.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> My sister the SJW feminist anti-racist extrodinaire has forgiven asshole woke boyfriend. So have many other women on her feed as well as across Canada. His apology was "sincere" according to them ...
> 
> The Cult of Personality thrives. Trudeau supporters are just like Trump supporters.


You know, such people are like the Notice me, Sempai meme


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> You know, such people are like the Notice me, Sempai meme


Yeah, they're just the Facebook version of panty droppers and the chicks that throw them at celebrities as they walk by.

#fakefeminists


----------



## deepelemblues

Come on guys if you want to dress up as Aladdin for an Arabian Nights themed party you _obviously_ have to put on makeup that is *much much darker* than the average Arabian skin tone 

Justin should have dressed like Tony Montana with makeup on to make him look Cuban back in the day, when people objected he could have turned the tables by finally admitting that Fidel Castro is his real father and said they were the racists :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

He really meant it, it's heart was broken that people saw him as the dumb asshole he is.

Wait, did I say heart, I meant ego.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> He really meant it, it's heart was broken that people saw him as the dumb asshole he is.
> 
> Wait, did I say heart, I meant ego.


The "choice" in Canada is between two racists, a woman and a brown guy. Guess who no one is even considering remotely viable options - even though the brown guy is actually the most progressive of the entire lot.

Just goes to prove to me over and over again that the fight is _always_ between neoliberals and conservatives where the neoliberals get to pretend to be progressive when they're the regressive ones who force their countries to the right everytime they win.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175028628628955136
Ilhan might just turn Minnesota red. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> My sister the SJW feminist anti-racist extrodinaire has forgiven asshole woke boyfriend. So have many other women on her feed as well as across Canada. His apology was "sincere" according to them ...
> 
> The Cult of Personality thrives. Trudeau supporters are just like Trump supporters.


A page or so back I said they would, seriously he could turn cosplay hitler and they'd forgive and vote for him. This would not happen if he was part of "The Bad scary Conservative" party and thus nothing changes because people cannot even hold their own accountable. So how can they be for change when they have serious issues in their own ranks?

Huck yuck, keep voting for them white allies tho! :laugh:


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175170912666234880


----------



## deepelemblues

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175170912666234880


In a rather interesting parallel of the disconnect between elite and common opinion, the electoral prospects of the Conservative Party continue to rise while the Brexit Party remains steady and Labour and the Liberal Democrats have slid a few points in the last 2 weeks

Support for Boris getting the UK out of the EU by the end of October regardless of whether it is a deal or a no-deal, stubbornly remains a few points above 50%. As was the reaction to the prorogation of Parliament; universally condemned in the media and the bulk of Parliament, supported by a majority of those polled. This iss not how things were supposed to happen. The Conservatives and whatever party Nigel Farage is running this month were supposed to be in a shambles by now, with the country strongly turning to the superior people who want to remain to save them from their folly

It is incredible how such a simple thing as a politician not triangulating, not blowing in the wind like a weak reed, staking a position and truly fighting for it, resonates with populations accustomed to a generation of open hypocrisy and Tony Blair-ism, a disease which has infected far more countries than Britain including the United States, France, Germany, essentially all the major Western countries


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175170912666234880


Multiculturalism is a sham propped up by banks, Governments and mega corporations. It's just another byproduct of Globalism which leeches off Nations and Economies. 

They talk of this somehow divided society that's somehow strong but yet will never come a consensus on anything, no peace and no order. Who's that benefit? Surely not the people living in that society. 

How people get caught up in the web spun by the elite in the world is a mystery to me. Yet people will keep up the facade it can work, well not surprising since we still have people who think communism can work. :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175618820142174209
Got 'em. :lol Anyone who is serious about climate change being a catastrophe would not be supporting mass migration from third world countries to first world countries. :draper2


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

i'm glad to see trudeau get tangled up in his own woke spiderweb, and at the same time i am also not surprised to see those same hypocrites come to his defense. 

but most importantly i'm struggling to see how putting makeup on your face without the slightest malicious intent makes you a bad person. i suppose someone more woke and enlightened than me can explain.



edit: uh oh, i recieved a neg for this comment. i take it back. trudeau is clearly hitler. my apologies. please don't ban me mods.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176339522113679360
:lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

Holy fuck did :trump troll the piss out of Greta Thunberg

Troll rank S class

First heard about it on the BBC radio and the presenter couldn't keep the amusement out of her voice. She tried mightily to play it straight. She wasn't laughing with Greta. Greta wasn't laughing at all

That was quite a speech. I hate you you ruined my life I'm never talking to you again I'm gonna go live with Rachel and her family I HATE YOU! Unless you do what I say

Miss Thunberg adults have been pwning mouthy teenagers for hundreds of thousands of years. You're no different


----------



## Strike Force

Berzerker's Beard said:


> i'm glad to see trudeau get tangled up in his own woke spiderweb, and at the same time i am also not surprised to see those same hypocrites come to his defense.
> 
> but most importantly i'm struggling to see how putting makeup on your face without the slightest malicious intent makes you a bad person. i suppose someone more woke and enlightened than me can explain.
> 
> 
> 
> edit: uh oh, i recieved a neg for this comment. i take it back. trudeau is clearly hitler. my apologies. please don't ban me mods.


----------



## Draykorinee

Thurnberg gave an excellent impassioned speech that was shared everywhere positively and Trump resorted to shitty tweets, supposedly Trump wins.

Trump was outsmarted by a 16 year old. She'll be what everyone talks about not him.


----------



## Reaper

I don't waste my time listening to hysterical 16 year old Karens.

And no, I'm not attacking her. Just the fact that she's being manipulated by her own fears and propped up like dozens of teenage girls like her in recent years. 

One of them was used to continue a massive campaign of drone bombing innocent people in my country as well as attempt a coup, so fuck anyone that props up a hysterical teenage girl in order to push their politics. It's a pattern that's become all to familiar with authoritative state control. 

I wanna save the environment like anyone else and pass reasonable regulations, but the hysteria around climate apocalypticism isn't reasonable.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> I don't waste my time listening to hysterical 16 year old Karens.
> 
> And no, I'm not attacking her. Just the fact that she's being manipulated by her own fears and propped up like dozens of teenage girls like her in recent years.
> 
> One of them was used to continue a massive campaign of drone bombing innocent people in my country as well as attempt a coup, so fuck anyone that props up a hysterical teenage girl in order to push their politics. It's a pattern that's become all to familiar with authoritative state control.
> 
> I wanna save the environment like anyone else and pass reasonable regulations, but the hysteria around climate apocalypticism isn't reasonable.


Anyone remember that inspiring Muslim girl that was shot in the head by terrorists, survived and was propped up by the MSM? Me either! Well the MSM found a new prop, a white one at that! This girl is being used as a puppet and a photo op tool. That's it. At Least the girl that was shot was an actual inspiring story, unlike Thurnberg.

Her boat ride stunt was hilarious because overall when it was said and done it was worse for the environment than taking a plane ride. It's been a hysteria campaign from the get go. I hate children being used as props.

Dinesh made a troll tweet about her being used as a propaganda girl from the ones like Nazi Germany. Patton Oswald got so triggered by it, it was funny. Though I must admit if Climate Change Karen was an Anti-Climate Change Karen prop, the comparison would have been brought up. :laugh:

I love these times we live in. It really makes for some good fun.


----------



## deepelemblues

Draykorinee said:


> Thurnberg gave an excellent impassioned speech that was shared everywhere positively and Trump resorted to shitty tweets, supposedly Trump wins.
> 
> Trump was outsmarted by a 16 year old. She'll be what everyone talks about not him.


Of course :trump wins, she's a 16 year old who made faces and laughable threats. She threw a tantrum at the General Assembly that my sister threw dozens of times from the ages of 13 to 17. Except her beef with my parents was why won't you let me date Steve and why won't you let me take the car and why is my curfew 10pm, not globul warmens. She lost every time. That's what teenagers do when they throw tantrums. US policy is not going to change. Chinese policy is not going to change. Indian policy is not going to change. European policy continues to underperform by its own standards of 'emissions reduction;' soundly beaten by the United States in that area over the last 20 years

Even if :trump loses next year, US policy is still not going to change. Democrats failed miserably at their globul warmens policies during the Obama administration; nearly all the unparalleled success of US emissions reduction has come from using natural gas extracted via fracking. The various let's spend 10 to 20 trillion dollars to save the Erf plans of the current Democrat candidates will never be implemented and they all know it 

The president walked right past Miss Thunberg and ignored her and everyone ran to him to ask about Iran. She got zero attention at what her handlers were obviously hoping would be a contrived confrontation moment that would provoke a media feeding frenzy. Shows exactly the difference in importance between the two

This is how powerless, irrelevant, and desperate the globul warmens Lysenkoist cult is. Leaning on children to throw tantrums and thinking that is going to convince people in the West to lower their living standards, and people in Africa and Asia to forego their chance at Western living standards

It's laughable


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Anyone remember that inspiring Muslim girl that was shot in the head by terrorists, survived and was propped up by the MSM?


Yeup. Malala. She is an incredible woman, but even before she was shot by the Taliban, there was something off about her political clout which had been building even before she was shot. She wasn't just shot because she was a girl who wanted an education. She was already a well known political activist with regular features and interviews on BBC Urdu before being shot. But her political clout and pushing her made her an OPEN target while American Drone Bombs were ALREADY killing 100's of Pakistanis and Afghan innocents which hardly any neoliberal gave two shits about during Bush's and Obama's regimes. No one wants to think of the impact of hysterical policy making on poor people over their supposed high minded ideals. 

It doesn't justify her shooting AT ALL. It just goes along with the narrative that the world doesn't do a good job of protecting little girls from the dangerous world and instead uses/exploits them for their political goals and agendas. 

Look, I'm not diminishing the impact of a teenage girl being shot in the head. It's literally one of the worst things that can happen to anyone. My heart goes out to her. But after she was brutally shot like that, the US ramped up its presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan because it was just another one of those things that make people more sympathetic to global war.

They tried that again with a Syrian girl to try to ramp up the war there. 

Then they're trying it with Greta. 

Then they'll try it with some Iranian girl. More likely a Saudi girl though and then inspire everyone to invade Iran once and for all ... 

This propaganda tool has been around for a while now and it's time people became skeptical of its uses .. and prevent these girls from being exploited for political motives.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> This propaganda tool has been around for a while now and it's time people became skeptical of its uses .. and prevent these girls from being exploited for political motives.


I think there is a thing called Toxic Empathy. That thing were people are so obsessed with being empathetic to every person and thing they can just to come off as a nice person.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> I think there is a thing called Toxic Empathy. That thing were people are so obsessed with being empathetic to every person and thing they can just to come off as a nice person.


I'm assuming being selectively outrage is part of that as well. 

We all know that this recent wave of hysteria will eventually die down. 

I think that the world *is* moving slowly and sensibly towards climate change reform. That's fine and dandy. 

But I dunno, the same people who whine the loudest about climate change probably wouldn't wanna miss their vacations around the world when jet fuel no longer exists ... Wonder if they'll wanna give up their Carribbean Cruises. What about meeting grandma for Christmas. 

Yah, we can *reduce* what we use definitely. But that's not what the _alarmists _are clamouring for since their hysteria is irrational for the most part.


----------



## Draykorinee

Remember clock boy? That was my favourite.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> Remember clock boy? That was my favourite.


:kobelol 

Now you're just giving some serious nostalgia.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> I'm assuming being selectively outrage is part of that as well.
> 
> We all know that this recent wave of hysteria will eventually die down.
> 
> I think that the world *is* moving slowly and sensibly towards climate change reform. That's fine and dandy.
> 
> But I dunno, the same people who whine the loudest about climate change probably wouldn't wanna miss their vacations around the world when jet fuel no longer exists ... Wonder if they'll wanna give up their Carribbean Cruises. What about meeting grandma for Christmas.
> 
> Yah, we can *reduce* what we use definitely. But that's not what the _alarmists _are clamouring for since their hysteria is irrational for the most part.


Even if the West gave into the alarmists, Asia and South America and India would do whatever they want and production would move over there. What's the alarmists gonna do? Have Greta pop up on tv with AOC and GQ and be like "Them are bad people in those countries!"

Besides, has anyone ever sat back and thought, just maybe a mass extinction event would be good for the planet rather than trying to change the behavior of people who's base behavior hasn't changed much for hundreds of years? :shrug


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Even if the West gave into the alarmists, Asia and South America and India would do whatever they want and production would move over there. What's the alarmists gonna do? Have Greta pop up on tv with AOC and GQ and be like "Them are bad people in those countries!"
> 
> Besides, has anyone ever sat back and thought, just maybe a mass extinction event would be good for the planet rather than trying to change the behavior of people who's base behavior hasn't changed much for hundreds of years? :shrug


Yah, I think that a lot of the climate change stuff is essentially still ego-driven and not really actual environmental consciousness. 

Also, this is a lot of propaganda though, but the countries accused of being non environmentally conscious are not only implementing reforms, but also showing significant change. "Them doing nothing" is still mostly inaccurate because pro-climate policies are being implemented. It's just eurocentrism to accuse developing countries of destroying the planet when you're the benefactor of 2 centuries of looting other country's wealth and then getting up on your imperialist high horse "haha look we so gr8 dem savages" .. But this happened *after* these same eurocentrists went through their industrial revolution themselves in order to become somewhat self-sufficient and mildly environmentally conscious. Let everyone else catch up and they will. 

Climate reversal shifts will be gradual. You can't change everything overnight and sensible reforms are already happening everywhere as people are becoming more environmentally conscious. 

Letting children get up on a bully pulpit is hystericism and this desire to change something overnight is completely impractical.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Even if the West gave into the alarmists, Asia and South America and India would do whatever they want and production would move over there. What's the alarmists gonna do? Have Greta pop up on tv with AOC and GQ and be like "Them are bad people in those countries!"
> 
> Besides, has anyone ever sat back and thought, just maybe a mass extinction event would be good for the planet rather than trying to change the behavior of people who's base behavior hasn't changed much for hundreds of years? :shrug


Yes


----------



## Draykorinee

Why should we do something when others don't is such a flawed idea.

Either way, Greta has done more for awareness of environmental issues and youth activism that no matter how many grown ass adults dismiss or mock her she'll be well remembered by the majority.


----------



## jroc72191

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176339522113679360
> :lmao


and cue all the "REEEEEE HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE A 16 YEAR OLD REEE!" blue check mark twitters


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> Why should we do something when others don't is such a flawed idea.
> 
> Either way, Greta has done more for awareness of environmental issues and youth activism that no matter how many grown ass adults dismiss or mock her she'll be well remembered by the majority.


Shes made everyone aware of the thing they're being taught in public schools since the 80s? Everyone that has grown up in my generation and went to school knows what she's saying. 

Do you remember the name of the Parkland boy who was propped up by the gun control crowd without googling?

---

Also, I guess this belongs here now. 










Let's have facts over fear mongering and fear mongerers.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Shes made everyone aware of the thing they're being taught in public schools since the 80s? Everyone that has grown up in my generation and went to school knows what she's saying.


Yeah, so much was done by our generation, we were so aware that we did nothing.

I don't remember youth activism around climate change being a big deal in the 80s but maybe you can enlighten me of these global youth marches?


----------



## FriedTofu

Don't get the hate the girl is getting for simply saying what her generation is feeling about climate change. Better this than those stupid campaigns against plastic straws and plastic bags that push guilt onto ordinary consumers while companies keep dumping whatever it is into the ocean.


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> Yeah, so much was done by our generation, we were so aware that we did nothing.
> 
> I don't remember youth activism around climate change being a big deal in the 80s but maybe you can enlighten me of these global youth marches?


I was in them ... I mean, I hate to accuse a good friend of projecting, but this is what it is. 

I wrote essays for the UN, The Commonwealth in essay competitions (about not just Climate Change but a whole host of issues including apartheid, I talked to adults growing up.) I even won an award and commendation on an essay I wrote about the plight of poor women in Pakistan before Malala was a thing. And no, I wasn't alone, schools around Pakistan were actively encouraging youth participation in all sorts of youth politics since the late 60s. Pakistan's first socialist movement was a student movement (my father participated).

The UN Youth League (Youth delegate programme) has been around for a long, long time and active participation has always been encouraged. 

Youth participation has always been around. _*Hystericism *_is new. *Hystericism *shouldn't be encouraged because it has negative effects. 

I recycled and spread the word - yes on the streets too at times. I mean, I'm only sedentary now, but I think you know (since I've brought it up before) that I've been very active politically growing up and only stopped after moving to the States.


----------



## DaRealNugget

Tulsi has officially qualified for the October debates. :mark:

She killed Tim Ryan's campaign before it had a chance to begin in the first debate. She brutally murdered Kamala's campaign in the second debate, sending one of the presumed "tier 1" candidates so low that she's losing to Andrew Yang in her home state :lol. Whose campaign will she end this time?

Fingers crossed she'll expose Liz Warren's awful foreign policy record, her coziness with the DNC, and her political maneuvering/lack of courage in endorsing the right candidate 2016.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so much was done by our generation, we were so aware that we did nothing.
> 
> I don't remember youth activism around climate change being a big deal in the 80s but maybe you can enlighten me of these global youth marches?
> 
> 
> 
> I was in them ... I mean, I hate to accuse a good friend of projecting, but this is what it is.
> 
> I wrote essays for the UN, The Commonwealth in essay competitions (about not just Climate Change but a whole host of issues including apartheid, I talked to adults growing up.) I even won an award and commendation on an essay I wrote about the plight of poor women in Pakistan before Malala was a thing. And no, I wasn't alone, schools around Pakistan were actively encouraging youth participation in all sorts of youth politics since the late 60s. Pakistan's first socialist movement was a student movement (my father participated).
> 
> The UN Youth League (Youth delegate programme) has been around for a long, long time and active participation has always been encouraged.
> 
> Youth participation has always been around. _*Hystericism *_is new. *Hystericism *shouldn't be encouraged because it has negative effects.
> 
> I recycled and spread the word - yes on the streets too at times. I mean, I'm only sedentary now, but I think you know (since I've brought it up before) that I've been very active politically growing up and only stopped after moving to the States.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence but I accept that there were some activism around.


----------



## Reaper

DaRealNugget said:


> Fingers crossed she'll expose Liz Warren's awful foreign policy record, her coziness with the DNC, and her political maneuvering/lack of courage in endorsing the right candidate 2016.


Yes. Liz Warren please. Drag that fake bitch across the floor and throw her back to the Republicans where she started.


----------



## Draykorinee

But I thought Warren was just Bernie 2.0


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> But I thought Warren was just Bernie 2.0


Lol. That's what Nancy wants Dumbocrat voters to believe.


----------



## bradatar

Wow he really baited her into impeachment 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShiningStar

DaRealNugget said:


> Fingers crossed she'll expose Liz Warren's awful foreign policy record, her coziness with the DNC, and her political maneuvering/lack of courage in endorsing the right candidate 2016.


If Warren stumbles it will be because of her pretending to Native American,or her coming off like the the usual Egghead who talks like they are better then everyone(Kerry,Gore,Hilary,Adalai Stevenson) who only appeals to white liberals who love a candidate saying "look at my extensive resume"/ "I am the smartest person in the room". Her endorsing Hilary in 2016 after Hilary was already the likely nominee or her foreign policy record is only gonna upset those online who she will never be pure enough for anyway.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Thurnberg gave an excellent impassioned speech


Huh? :lol It sounded more like a horrible theatre audition to me.










I'm sure people on here won't want to revisit the Covington case though. :lol If they've even had the decency to ever circle back to it in the first place to know how incredibly in the wrong they were.


----------



## CamillePunk

Warren is so transparently full of shit. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Huh? :lol It sounded more like a horrible theatre audition to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure people on here won't want to revisit the Covington case though. :lol If they've even had the decency to ever circle back to it in the first place to know how incredibly in the wrong they were.


Most of the people who are whining about greta are the very same who talked shit about or threatened the covington kids. I'm not sure they live in reality anymore.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> Most of the people who are whining about greta are the very same who talked shit about or threatened the covington kids. I'm not sure they live in reality anymore.


Huh? Who are these people do you know them? That's pure speculation. 

This is just my take on your posts, but sometimes your extreme cynicism really clouds everything else.

What's wrong with calling out coward keyboard warriors or incendiary talking heads insulting and taking down a 16 year old girl with guts enough to take her activism to a global stage and inspire so many people?


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Most of the people who are whining about greta are the very same who talked shit about or threatened the covington kids. I'm not sure they live in reality anymore.


Aye, I remember the right using them as propaganda then they get upset when Greta is 'used' for propaganda. 

I don't think either side lives in reality anymore.


----------



## Reaper

I criticize all forms of using kids as tools of propaganda, and yeah, I 100% recall coming out against the people who were literally talking about punching that poor kid who had an old man get right up in his face. That was orchestrated and the kid in the MAGA hat was abused afterwards. Let's not fucking lie about that. Neoliberals and pretend anti-racists had a lot to say about that and just completely disappeared after the narrative swung. 

Don't fucking use kids for your propaganda. I don't give a shit if your politics are correct or incorrect. It's a shitty thing to do to exploit any child for any debate. Period. You wanna fight for children's rights, do it yourself. 

Let's also not pretend that both sides aren't guilty of that and not just one side.

Meanwhile, kids who have real problems like being shot in schools, raped by Catholic Priests, raped in Hollywood, tossed aside in group homes, used as human shields by Palestinians, bombed by Americans and Israelis in their hospitals and schools, being ethnically cleansed by Fucking Saudis and the ENTIRE Western World are voiceless. 

Where are their UN Platforms for *gross and actual *human rights violations? I bring this up because an existential future threat doesn't need to be taken as seriously as an immediate threat that's currently killing millions of children right now and people might actually be motivated to end wars. 

Plus, you want climate change reforms and an end to oil dependency, stop supporting wars and voting for Western Politicians who have their dicks wrapped around Saudi Cock. 

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176553027416788998


----------



## jroc72191

Draykorinee said:


> Aye, I remember the right using them as propaganda then they get upset when Greta is 'used' for propaganda.
> 
> I don't think either side lives in reality anymore.


umm the right just stepped up to defend these kids when the left decided they were going to fucking doxx them and ruin their lives for smirking while being confronted by a crazy ***** banging his fucking drum loudly.


----------



## Draykorinee

jroc72191 said:


> umm the right just stepped up to defend these kids when the left decided they were going to fucking doxx them and ruin their lives for smirking while being confronted by a crazy ***** banging his fucking drum loudly.


So did many on the left like Dore and co, but they weren't the ones getting them on TV or people like Rush Limbaugh lauding them as everything right with America.

They used this relentlessly to attack the MSM, not that is inherently wrong, but you can't accuse the left of propaganda to push a climate change narrative while also putting Maga kids front and centre of your attacks on the MSM.

There's a meme going around now with Greta, a nazi and the democrats and linking the 3, which is not only gross but a terrible use of right wing propaganda and children. Not sure why you would chose that hill to die on.


----------



## jroc72191

Draykorinee said:


> So did many on the left like Dore and co, but they weren't the ones getting them on TV or people like Rush Limbaugh lauding them as everything right with America.
> 
> They used this relentlessly to attack the MSM, not that is inherently wrong, but you can't accuse the left of propaganda to push a climate change narrative while also putting Maga kids front and centre of your attacks on the MSM.
> 
> There's a meme going around now with Greta, a nazi and the democrats and linking the 3, which is not only gross but a terrible use of right wing propaganda and children. Not sure why you would chose that hill to die on.




when u had people on the left with blue checkmarks doxxing them, people like reza aslan saying the kids had punchable faces and people trying to get the kids PARENTS fired over the whole thing.. your complaint falls on deaf ears. she put herself out there willingly, the other kid didnt.


----------



## Draykorinee

jroc72191 said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did many on the left like Dore and co, but they weren't the ones getting them on TV or people like Rush Limbaugh lauding them as everything right with America.
> 
> They used this relentlessly to attack the MSM, not that is inherently wrong, but you can't accuse the left of propaganda to push a climate change narrative while also putting Maga kids front and centre of your attacks on the MSM.
> 
> There's a meme going around now with Greta, a nazi and the democrats and linking the 3, which is not only gross but a terrible use of right wing propaganda and children. Not sure why you would chose that hill to die on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when u had people on the left with blue checkmarks doxxing them, people like reza aslan saying the kids had punchable faces and people trying to get the kids PARENTS fired over the whole thing.. your complaint falls on deaf ears. she put herself out there willingly, the other kid didnt.
Click to expand...

I thought Greta was a tool of her parents and the left? Now it's her putting herself out there.

Round and round in circles to suit your narrative.

It's okay, just admit you're fine with people linking Greta to nazis because it's the right doing it.

We're all used to double standards.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

yeahbaby! said:


> Huh? Who are these people do you know them? That's pure speculation.
> 
> This is just my take on your posts, but sometimes your extreme cynicism really clouds everything else.
> 
> *What's wrong with calling out coward keyboard warriors or incendiary talking heads insulting and taking down a 16 year old girl* with guts enough to take her activism to a global stage and inspire so many people?


this right here is what's wrong with it.

what does her age have anything to do with it? if she were 26 or 36 she would be receiving just as criticism for her views.

what you are essentially saying is it's wrong to criticize a child, so if that's the case all politicians have to do is use children as a tool to indoctrinate the masses and then they will never have to face criticism. 

how would you feel if trump let a 16 year old girl speak at his next MAGA rally just so she could passionately regurgitate his own talking points?


----------



## Draykorinee

Everyone has their own moral compass, if you think it's okay to insult 16 year olds because they have aspergers you're a cunt. I don't think anyone should have their autism /aspergers used to insult them because I am not a cunt.

Why would anyone have a problem with a16 year old at a trump rally?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> Everyone has their own moral compass, if you think it's okay to insult 16 year olds because they have aspergers you're a cunt. I don't think anyone should have their autism /aspergers used to insult them because I am not a cunt.
> 
> Why would anyone have a problem with a16 year old at a trump rally?


i haven't been keeping up with this story. i had no idea she had a condition. yes if you criticize her for that you're an asshole.

i'm just saying she shouldn't be entirely free from criticism. she put herself out there.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> .
> 
> i'm just saying she shouldn't be entirely free from criticism. she put herself out there.


Correct, I do think there are still limits based on age, I personally would not like to see the insults I throw at trump to be used on a 16 year old maga kid.

But ultimately, you should critique everyone who makes their point in an open stage. 

The best way is to not pick a person's disorder and attack their views.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

yeahbaby! said:


> Huh? Who are these people do you know them? That's pure speculation.
> 
> This is just my take on your posts, but sometimes your extreme cynicism really clouds everything else.
> 
> What's wrong with calling out coward keyboard warriors or incendiary talking heads insulting and taking down a 16 year old girl with guts enough to take her activism to a global stage and inspire so many people?


Nothing, if you're consistent about it. I don't know if you personally have been or not but most haven't.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> Correct, I do think there are still limits based on age, I personally would not like to see the insults I throw at trump to be used on a 16 year old maga kid.
> 
> But ultimately, you should critique everyone who makes their point in an open stage.
> 
> The best way is to not pick a person's disorder and attack their views.


... and also to keep children out of politics. she should have never been put in this position to begin with.

both her parents and her political handlers are exploiting and using this child. it doesn't matter if she's passionate or not, she does not belong in this arena.


----------



## jroc72191

Draykorinee said:


> I thought Greta was a tool of her parents and the left? Now it's her putting herself out there.
> 
> Round and round in circles to suit your narrative.
> 
> It's okay, just admit you're fine with people linking Greta to nazis because it's the right doing it.
> 
> We're all used to double standards.




when did i ever say Greta was a tool of her parents? now you are putting words into my mouth


----------



## Strike Force

Removed - quoted the wrong post.


----------



## Draykorinee

jroc72191 said:


> Draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Greta was a tool of her parents and the left? Now it's her putting herself out there.
> 
> Round and round in circles to suit your narrative.
> 
> It's okay, just admit you're fine with people linking Greta to nazis because it's the right doing it.
> 
> We're all used to double standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did i ever say Greta was a tool of her parents? now you are putting words into my mouth
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough, you're one of the few people on the right who don't think Greta is a victim of parental indoctrination and being taken advantage of by the left for their own aims 

I respect that.


----------



## Reaper

Actually, NVM.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> I criticize all forms of using kids as tools of propaganda, and yeah, I 100% recall coming out against the people who were literally talking about punching that poor kid who had an old man get right up in his face. That was orchestrated and the kid in the MAGA hat was abused afterwards. Let's not fucking lie about that. Neoliberals and pretend anti-racists had a lot to say about that and just completely disappeared after the narrative swung.
> 
> Don't fucking use kids for your propaganda. I don't give a shit if your politics are correct or incorrect. It's a shitty thing to do to exploit any child for any debate. Period. You wanna fight for children's rights, do it yourself.
> 
> Let's also not pretend that both sides aren't guilty of that and not just one side.
> 
> Meanwhile, kids who have real problems like being shot in schools, raped by Catholic Priests, raped in Hollywood, tossed aside in group homes, used as human shields by Palestinians, bombed by Americans and Israelis in their hospitals and schools, being ethnically cleansed by Fucking Saudis and the ENTIRE Western World are voiceless.
> 
> Where are their UN Platforms for *gross and actual *human rights violations? I bring this up because an existential future threat doesn't need to be taken as seriously as an immediate threat that's currently killing millions of children right now and people might actually be motivated to end wars.
> 
> Plus, you want climate change reforms and an end to oil dependency, stop supporting wars and voting for Western Politicians who have their dicks wrapped around Saudi Cock.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176553027416788998


You were one of the first people to have suspicions about the Covington kids and the MSM reaction. The reaction was so over the top that it was mind boggling. I don't think most of the idiots wishing harm on those kids actually apologized. Those foaming at the mouth idiots were so sure their cause was righteous that they didn't even bother to look before they leaped. 

This is why i mention Patton in my earlier post, he was one of the few reactionary tweeters that gets hundreds of thousands of likes for his statements but never owns up when he's wrong. He isn't the worst offender but he's a perfect example of what the fuck is wrong with our society.

Kids are constantly being used as props in this "culture war" and people keep going along with it. It's insanity. Besides Trump's tweet about Greta's concerns being unfounded or not as serious as she thinks was mild trolling. It was nothing compared to the shit the MAGA kids got yet it's treated as if it is. Does nobody have a mirror anymore or even a memory? What's funny is Trump ignoring Greta and his tweet has caused everything to be about him. With no "show down", Greta is now a pointless tool. 

Oh well, she'll be like the other props and get rich off it and she'll have a lifetime of speaking about how the world is going to burn next week for years to come! :x Also PS, Justin seems to be in the clear now since this was a perfect distraction, I bet the people who were silent about him now can rage at Trump without their racist Golden God being brought up. 100% right about Warren, Dems now winning in 2020 doesn't matter. It's still a win for them. :laugh:


----------



## bradatar

Draykorinee said:


> Okay, fair enough, you're one of the few people on the right who don't think Greta is a victim of parental indoctrination and being taken advantage of by the left for their own aims
> 
> I respect that.


To be fair, there are many places linking her with Soros, but this is a child and you won't find me bashing one. The only thing they can 100% prove is a picture of her in a "Antifascist All Stars" shirt.


----------



## deepelemblues

Strike Force said:


> More partisan, uninformed nonsense from one of the forum's very worst posters. Try to keep up. Inform yourself, read information from multiple news sources, and (and this is the hard part for people of your ilk), most importantly, THINK about what you've read.


That was a quite accurate rendition of the two minutes hate drummed up against teenager nick sandmann and his friends, and a reminder of the gross double standard that is always in operation

Pray tell inform me about how sandmann and his friends actually did something wrong in the face of multiple videos showing they didn't do jack shit


----------



## Strike Force

deepelemblues said:


> That was a quite accurate rendition of the two minutes hate drummed up against teenager nick sandmann and his friends, and a reminder of the gross double standard that is always in operation
> 
> Pray tell inform me about how sandmann and his friends actually did something wrong in the face of multiple videos showing they didn't do jack shit


I retract that. I quoted the wrong post, and looking back, can't even remember what my original point was. Disregard.


----------



## deepelemblues

Strike Force said:


> I retract that. I quoted the wrong post, and looking back, can't even remember what my original point was. Disregard.


Request to disregard approved by section B-33

Altho calling the guy a crazy ***** was unnecessary and quite distasteful mr jroc


----------



## bradatar

Lol @ Trumps presser right now. Love it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> You were one of the first people to have suspicions about the Covington kids and the MSM reaction. The reaction was so over the top that it was mind boggling. I don't think most of the idiots wishing harm on those kids actually apologized. Those foaming at the mouth idiots were so sure their cause was righteous that they didn't even bother to look before they leaped.
> 
> This is why i mention Patton in my earlier post, he was one of the few reactionary tweeters that gets hundreds of thousands of likes for his statements but never owns up when he's wrong. He isn't the worst offender but he's a perfect example of what the fuck is wrong with our society.
> 
> Kids are constantly being used as props in this "culture war" and people keep going along with it. It's insanity. Besides Trump's tweet about Greta's concerns being unfounded or not as serious as she thinks was mild trolling. It was nothing compared to the shit the MAGA kids got yet it's treated as if it is. Does nobody have a mirror anymore or even a memory? What's funny is Trump ignoring Greta and his tweet has caused everything to be about him. With no "show down", Greta is now a pointless tool.
> 
> Oh well, she'll be like the other props and get rich off it and she'll have a lifetime of speaking about how the world is going to burn next week for years to come! :x Also PS, Justin seems to be in the clear now since this was a perfect distraction, I bet the people who were silent about him now can rage at Trump without their racist Golden God being brought up. 100% right about Warren, Dems now winning in 2020 doesn't matter. It's still a win for them. :laugh:


I don't even pay attention to Trump anymore. He's just as bad as all of the worst presidents we've had at this point, but his only saving grace is that while he refuses to end existing engagements for obvious/insane reasions (considering that America is a fake 2party totalitarian regime), he has been completely against any new engagement. Until then, he's got an edge over Obama who started several new foreign engagements for the Saudis and created the mess we're in right now while the blue checks have starting worshiping Bush as well. 

America will always be a War regime. The only good candidate out there is an anti-war candidate and I don't believe we have any of those in this country (period). People who want an end to wars are completely unrepresented on any level of government whatsoever.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Reaper said:


> I don't even pay attention to Trump anymore. He's just as bad as all of the worst presidents we've had at this point, but his only saving grace is that while he refuses to end existing engagements for obvious/insane reasions (considering that America is a fake 2party totalitarian regime), he has been completely against any new engagement. Until then, he's got an edge over Obama who started several new foreign engagements for the Saudis and created the mess we're in right now while the blue checks have starting worshiping Bush as well.
> 
> America will always be a War regime. The only good candidate out there is an anti-war candidate and I don't believe we have any of those in this country (period). People who want an end to wars are completely unrepresented on any level of government whatsoever.


Yeah, the obsession with Trump is insane. I go out of my way not to watch news and I've basically gotten rid of social media. Yet I get force fed an uncountable amount of Trump news daily. I ignore nearly all of it.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Aye, I remember the right using them as propaganda then they get upset when Greta is 'used' for propaganda.
> 
> I don't think either side lives in reality anymore.


Uh, no. :lol They used the fact that liberals demonized and threatened violence against an innocent teenager to demonstrate how said liberals are cray cray. That's not propaganda, that's just describing reality. :lol Why are you so partisan about the politics of a country you don't live in?


----------



## jroc72191

Draykorinee said:


> Okay, fair enough, you're one of the few people on the right who don't think Greta is a victim of parental indoctrination and being taken advantage of by the left for their own aims
> 
> I respect that.


i get what you are saying.. i just feel she is directing her ire at the wrong people... has she called out china and india for their incredible pollution?


----------



## jroc72191

deepelemblues said:


> Request to disregard approved by section B-33
> 
> Altho calling the guy a crazy ***** was unnecessary and quite distasteful mr jroc


honestly with the way he lied and got into the face of teenagers. there is no better term.. if it were a fucked up MAGA hat wearer youd make some sort of 
"white trash" comment.. maybe not you but someone else would.


----------



## Miss Sally

jroc72191 said:


> i get what you are saying.. i just feel she is directing her ire at the wrong people... has she called out china and india for their incredible pollution?


She won't or her handlers won't let her. China is an emerging market and everyone has ignored the rather very odd Indian society.

Greta is such a climate change outrager that she could easily say something racist or insensitive to those groups of people and that would be it. These types only attack what's considered safe and won't risk any controversy that isn't paint by numbers Western MSM manufactured controversy.

It's why nobody in the end will listen, because it's all a song and dance to with no real conviction.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Uh, no. :lol They used the fact that liberals demonized and threatened violence against an innocent teenager to demonstrate how said liberals are cray cray. That's not propaganda, that's just describing reality. :lol Why are you so partisan about the politics of a country you don't live in?


:clap Aye, so partisan I said both sides don't live in reality, imagine thinking that both sides suck is being partisan...Did you hit your head:lol:lol?

Its pretty sad how many times I have to attack the left for being utterly devoid of any tact, skill, class or ability to not be cunts yet still get called partisan.

Why are you so partisan yet, incorrectly, having a go at someone else for being partisan. At least admit you're a hypocrite .


----------



## CamillePunk

In case anyone is interested in actual journalism regarding Russiagate, election meddling, and Biden's political corruption.  Aaron Mate, a leftist journalist, lays it all out here with ya boy Jimmy Dore.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> :clap Aye, so partisan I said both sides don't live in reality, imagine thinking that both sides suck is being partisan...Did you hit your head:lol:lol?
> 
> Its pretty sad how many times I have to attack the left for being utterly devoid of any tact, skill, class or ability to not be cunts yet still get called partisan.
> 
> Why are you so partisan yet, incorrectly, having a go at someone else for being partisan. At least admit you're a hypocrite .


Except your example for why the right "doesn't live in reality" was completely false, which is where your bias is betrayed.  Simpletons may fall for it, but I won't.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Except your example for why the right "doesn't live in reality" was completely false, which is where your bias is betrayed.  Simpletons may fall for it, but I won't.


Oh, you've switch to a bias now? I thought it was paritsan? Of course I have a bias, everyone does. 

Problem is as far back as 2018 when this thread started my first post was about how much I hate ALL neocons, coprorate elites and establishment politicians, and the last 10 pages I've attacked Warren, Trudeau, the left and the Dems yet you still, fucking go on about paritsanship, you're taking an illogical position based on emotion and not logic, seek help.

This was me 3 pages in to this thread



> Cool, my knowledge of Cali is so limited. I just have no time for people like taker that seem hellbent on demonising the left when both sides are at it, they don't always have equal opportunity to be assholes but when they get their chances they don't half jump at it.
> 
> This is precisely why I don't trust labour, I should, they've been my part for life but Tony Blair did more harm to my country (and the world) than most Tory PMs.
> 
> As with all bashing the left or right posts, make sure your own house is in order first.
> 
> I don't care if you're a GOP neocon or a Establishment Dem Neocon, you're the enemy of politics IMO.


A few pages later



Draykorinee said:


> A year ago I would have tried to argue with you (Man we had some arguments didn't we). Defend the Democrats.
> 
> I can't.
> 
> You're right.
> 
> They're scum.



And I still say the exact same thing and I still get simpletons trying to say I'm partisan. I literally attack the left ALL the fucking time.


----------



## CamillePunk

Still haven't acknowledged the fact that you lied and misrepresented the Covington case, I see.  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177274132674883584
Does he not know they were shot by the government he wants us to give our guns to? :lol What a moron.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> In case anyone is interested in actual journalism regarding Russiagate, election meddling, and Biden's political corruption.  Aaron Mate, a leftist journalist, lays it all out here with ya boy Jimmy Dore.


Is Biden even switched on enough (or at all) to engage in corruption?

After that brain explosion about record players I'm not sure he ties his own shoes.



> Social workers help parents deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help, they don’t know what to play the radio, make sure the television — excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the — make sure that kids hear words, a kid coming from a very poor school — a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time we get there.


('Old' quote I know but only just heard the original script).


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177221680999124992
:lol

I really don't know how anyone is able to take Greta's speech seriously. It cracks me up every time right from the start. :lol "I shouldn't be up here..." Well said, Greta. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

It's raining red snowflakes!

:heston


----------



## Kabraxal

CamillePunk said:


> Still haven't acknowledged the fact that you lied and misrepresented the Covington case, I see.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177274132674883584
> Does he not know they were shot by the government he wants us to give our guns to? :lol What a moron.


It’s evil idiots like Beto that make me consider voting for the lesser evil....


----------



## Reaper

0 MSM coverage for the mass murdering American War Machine: 










You can impeach 1 million presidents, but they're all war criminals bought by corporations. It's not going to make an iota of difference when everyone is complicit either through direct or indirect action, or inaction and intentional hiding of the ongoing mass murder committed by US troops, its allies and the people who buy artillery from them around the world.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tulsi gunning for Liz the Fraud next. :mark:

Really enjoy this Rising program.  Really interesting discussions about REAL issues rather than the BS the MSM talks about. Hosted by a progressive and a libertarian/Trumplican-type which makes for a great dynamic as well as a civil one.  It's a refreshing change of pace from the one-sided progressive and pro-Trump youtube channels that I regularly watch.


----------



## deepelemblues

Maybe those people brought their rifles to Robert O'Rourke's rally because they wanted him to buy them back

What a missed opportunity


----------



## CamillePunk

Another Rising video.  Here Andrew Yang responds to Bernie Sanders' criticism of his Freedom Dividend (UBI) plan. Bernie says most people would rather work and be productive members of society than receive free money. This is a staggering statement from someone who has never been a productive member of society, but I digress. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Still haven't acknowledged the fact that you lied and misrepresented the Covington case, I see.
> 
> 
> Does he not know they were shot by the government he wants us to give our guns to? :lol What a moron.


I definitely misrepresented parts of my argument, not one of my better ones, which is why I said a few posts later that they weren't wrong to attack the MSM, I said it was wrong to put the kids front and centre of the debate instead of using the actual event as the narrative. That's the best i could do to cover my err in judgement, no one likes admitting they didn't get their argument right.

Still haven't acknowledged in face of all the facts that you lied and misrepresented me as a partisan hack, not the first and it won't be the last I'm sure. 

As to Bernie never being a productive member of society, thats a moronic claim too, utterly devoid of any logical thought.


----------



## Draykorinee

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-49837898



> The OK hand sign has been added to a list of hate symbols.
> 
> The finger-and-thumb gesture - which is also a popular emoji - is being used by some as a "sincere expression of white supremacy", according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).


kkkkk



> "It's a coded message to people who are in the know and understand what the far-right are doing," he tells Radio 1 Newsbeat.


Someone get out the enigma machine, someone needs to crack this code.


----------



## virus21

Draykorinee said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-49837898
> 
> 
> 
> kkkkk


And world gets dumber


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CamillePunk said:


> Another Rising video.  Here Andrew Yang responds to Bernie Sanders' criticism of his Freedom Dividend (UBI) plan. *Bernie says most people would rather work and be productive members of society than receive free money. *This is a staggering statement from someone who has never been a productive member of society, but I digress. :lol


i don't think bernie knows his own base...


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177221680999124992
> :lol
> 
> I really don't know how anyone is able to take Greta's speech seriously. It cracks me up every time right from the start. :lol "I shouldn't be up here..." Well said, Greta. :lol


The climate change hooplah goes all the way back to the 70's. It was global cooling then. This stuff has been done over and over, we've already lived all this. Greta isn't the first, she won't be the last. The world needs it's puppets and there's always someone to be one.



Reaper said:


> 0 MSM coverage for the mass murdering American War Machine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can impeach 1 million presidents, but they're all war criminals bought by corporations. It's not going to make an iota of difference when everyone is complicit either through direct or indirect action, or inaction and intentional hiding of the ongoing mass murder committed by US troops, its allies and the people who buy artillery from them around the world.


Nobody cares, Obama got a peace prize and he was bombing the fuck out of people. Sweden boasts itself as being so loving and welcoming but ships out weapons to the very people it welcomes. Same with Canada. The world is ran by warlords, virtue signaling asshats and their sycophants.


----------



## Miss Sally

So if anyone knows who Carson king is, he's the guy who raised 1 million bucks for beer money which he pledged to charity. He's at 2 million now.

A local "woke" reporter dug up King's tweets from high school where king made racist jokes. Funny enough, people dug into the journalists twitter past and discovered they had racist stuff up too, so the journalist got fired. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> So if anyone knows who Carson king is, he's the guy who raised 1 million bucks for beer money which he pledged to charity. He's at 2 million now.
> 
> A local "woke" reporter dug up King's tweets from high school where king made racist jokes. Funny enough, people dug into the journalists twitter past and discovered they had racist stuff up too, so the journalist got fired. [emoji23]


I'm glad this is happening. A context-less society cancels itself out.

Well, at least a shrieking white child inadvertently brought some attention to other children with stolen dreams. :Shrug:


----------



## blaird

Miss Sally said:


> So if anyone knows who Carson king is, he's the guy who raised 1 million bucks for beer money which he pledged to charity. He's at 2 million now.
> 
> A local "woke" reporter dug up King's tweets from high school where king made racist jokes. Funny enough, people dug into the journalists twitter past and discovered they had racist stuff up too, so the journalist got fired. :laugh:


And if what I read is true, this journalist referred to "cancel culture" as a right wing conspiracy, and then got cancelled. 

Either way, it turned out to be a cool story...guy makes funny sign asking for beer money for cheap beer, lots of money donated, guy gives back to Iowa hospital, venmo and anheiser match donations. See, lots of problems can be solved with beer.


----------



## Reaper

blaird said:


> And if what I read is true, this journalist referred to "cancel culture" as a right wing conspiracy, and then got cancelled.
> 
> Either way, it turned out to be a cool story...guy makes funny sign asking for beer money for cheap beer, lots of money donated, guy gives back to Iowa hospital, venmo and anheiser match donations. See, lots of problems can be solved with beer.


I wish the real cancel culture would be all of the extremists cancelling each other out and people return to being reasonable instead of engaging in mass panic and hystericism.


----------



## skypod

CamillePunk said:


> Another Rising video.  Here Andrew Yang responds to Bernie Sanders' criticism of his Freedom Dividend (UBI) plan. Bernie says most people would rather work and be productive members of society than receive free money. This is a staggering statement from someone who has never been a productive member of society, but I digress. :lol



What Bernie said is actually much more a Conservative line, its funny to see him criticized by the right for that. 

Meanwhile the only reason Andrew Yang is remotely popular with the right is because he went on Ben Shaprio and Dave Rubin and nodded his head with their "freedom of speech and getting kicked off Youtube is a much bigger crisis than severe economic disparity" nonsense. You don't actually even need right wing policies anymore, you just have to equally dislike "the looney blue haired left and their trans members and policing our twitters!!!"


----------



## CamillePunk

I wasn't criticizing Bernie for what he said, just saying that I found it amusing given his own work history.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Draykorinee

Saudis begging the world to help with Iran because they fucked up Yemen and can't win there.

If you don't help us oil prices will go up!! That sucks and all but maybe stop supporting terrorists and committing gross human rights abuses first.


----------



## CamillePunk

Warren is an establishment candidate trying to pass as a progressive. I predict that if she were to become president, she will fill her cabinet with establishment Democrats and fail to support progressives in state elections so that she can continue with the rhetoric while functionally ensuring none of it ever gets enacted. Seems pretty obvious to me. :lol


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Warren is an establishment candidate trying to pass as a progressive. I predict that if she were to become president, she will fill her cabinet with establishment Democrats and fail to support progressives in state elections so that she can continue with the rhetoric while functionally ensuring none of it ever gets enacted. Seems pretty obvious to me. :lol


I could easily come up with a dozen reasons why I would never vote Warren but her vote to increase Trump's war budget would certainly top the list. I'm never voting for anyone who won't at least attempt to take on the MIC.

Then there is the supporting Hillary bullshit...

And the fake Native American bullshit...

I could go on and on but hard pass on her as president.

On the bright side of things, Tulsi will be in the 4th debate, so there is still some tiny amount of hope left alive.


----------



## yeahbaby!

So just like any other mainstream candidate. The reason they're up there as a strong possibility is precisely because they're an actor who's sold out, otherwise no one in the 'establishment' will trust them.

It's like Denzel says to Ethan Hawke in Training Day when he offers him the dirty money - no one's going to trust you unless they've got something on you.


----------



## ShiningStar

skypod said:


> What Bernie said is actually much more a Conservative line, its funny to see him criticized by the right for that.
> 
> Meanwhile the only reason Andrew Yang is remotely popular with the right is because he went on Ben Shaprio and Dave Rubin and nodded his head with their "freedom of speech and getting kicked off Youtube is a much bigger crisis than severe economic disparity" nonsense. You don't actually even need right wing policies anymore, you just have to equally dislike "the looney blue haired left and their trans members and policing our twitters!!!"


Yang and Tulsi are the other side of the coin of Bush Eera conservatives and Never Trumper's who get paraded about by the DNC establishment in the media. All the Kristol's,SE Cupp,Schmidt,Navarro's etc have to do is wag the finger about Trump breaking the customary codes of propriety and they are treated as reasonable, even if policy wise Trump has been fairly in with a traditional NeoCon Admin that they championed before Trump.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

I just want to know, as a fellow progressive, when the DNC fucks you out of your vote again, AOC endorses Warren (I'm waiting for the sell out), and 2020 goes to shit, what's next for you?

When is it that enough is enough? When these so called 'progressives' fall in line with the corporate party after screwing Bernie again, what cha ya gonna do brother? 

I'm very curious how much people really want to change things. Because I'll tell you what, these 'elections', if you want to even call them that, are not working.


----------



## Draykorinee

Tulsi already said she'll support the Dems regardless of any situation.

Just gross.

Stop supporting establishment Democrats when they fuck you over, actually stop supporting them full stop.


----------



## Miss Sally

The CBC has been deflecting from the story about Justin "I wear black face to support BLM" Trudeau.

The CBC has tracked down the man who sent in the photo of Justin and has been harassing him as to why he did it. Do you really need any reason other than exposing a phony progressive racist?

I mean seriously?

BoycotCBC was trending on twitter, seems many Canadians are pissed. 

The guy sent it in anonymously, which means someone at the Times squealed and further degrades journalistic integrity. I'm actually surprised the Times didn't just bury the story like the Canadian MSM did. 

Tulsi supporting the DNC machine just makes me sad. I'm just done, they're all the same or they back down.

As for AOC supporting anyone, not sure, her and her squad are trying to be the nu establishment. When that fails she'll sing and dance the DNC tune.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> The CBC has been deflecting from the story about Justin


:aries2

What you saying?

Edit:you edited


----------



## BruiserKC

Miss Sally said:


> So if anyone knows who Carson king is, he's the guy who raised 1 million bucks for beer money which he pledged to charity. He's at 2 million now.
> 
> A local "woke" reporter dug up King's tweets from high school where king made racist jokes. Funny enough, people dug into the journalists twitter past and discovered they had racist stuff up too, so the journalist got fired. :laugh:


He finished at just under $3 million. 

But what I don't understand...what does racist tweets from a TV show eight years ago have to do with this story? If he busted out racist Tweets right before College Gameday I could see that. But eight years ago?


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1178886695984517120

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1178887039078543360
:lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

Police shoot one protester in Hong Kong and it is major international news.

Police shoot anyone in America and it is just a Tuesday.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tulsi flip-flopping on impeachment is not a good look for her after rightfully criticizing other Dems for focusing on it. Harms her genuine independent-thinker brand as it feels like a political calculation.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Police shoot one protester in Hong Kong and it is major international news.
> 
> Police shoot anyone in America and it is just a Tuesday.


Depends if the MSM can spin it or boost it to make money off of it. If not, nobody cares.



BruiserKC said:


> He finished at just under $3 million.
> 
> But what I don't understand...what does racist tweets from a TV show eight years ago have to do with this story? If he busted out racist Tweets right before College Gameday I could see that. But eight years ago?


Reporter was trying to expose him I guess and show "wokeness" instead the reporter got found out and fired. :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

Bill Maher thinks she's a serious candidate btw.


----------



## skypod

Jacob Wohl's latest antics are going to end up making Warren more popular. What a fucking tool.


I stand by that only Bernie won't "shrink" next to Trump in debates. The rest all have things Trump can distract and bully from. Yang will split independent/moderate right vote but all Trump has to do is force him into identity politics and Yang will lose swing voters (saying things like immigrants aren't the biggest concern and presidents shouldn't engage in illegal activity is seemingly seen as weak and pandering and the opposite to what America is about).


----------



## ShiningStar

If Jacob Wohl's bs even ended up being true how is Elizabeth Warren having a 25 yo Marine as a side piece gonna hurt her?


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> Jacob Wohl's latest antics are going to end up making Warren more popular. What a fucking tool.
> 
> 
> I stand by that only Bernie won't "shrink" next to Trump in debates. The rest all have things Trump can distract and bully from. Yang will split independent/moderate right vote but all Trump has to do is force him into identity politics and Yang will lose swing voters (saying things like immigrants aren't the biggest concern and presidents shouldn't engage in illegal activity is seemingly seen as weak and pandering and the opposite to what America is about).


Trump is not powerful because he's a PoS who can distract and bully opponents. He's powerful because he represents the ideologies of enough people in this country that can vote him into power and keep him in power. 

The issue is with the deep penetration of fascism itself and the lack of awareness around it and that cannot be changed quickly because as we've already seen, neoliberals and centrists can go either way but generally they tend to slide right more than left because like many things, they're agnostic in their ideological beliefs and completely ignorant of how a neoliberal/classicl liberal/far right economic system is designed to destroy their lives, not save them.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1178716887078854657
She's right, of course, but that doesn't fit into the plans of those looking for a socialist revolution.


----------



## DOPA

Julie is absolutely right, especially on the points about nuclear power and electric cars. What is especially frustrating is some of the most rabid environmentalists outright reject nuclear power even though it is the most developed alternative/clean energy source that we have and is an actual realistic answer to fossil fuels.

Thankfully we do have countries like France who are doing just that .


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180476191951802369
What a joke of a human being AOC is.


----------



## Draykorinee

Yeah, these people who hear nuclear and go bad are just morons who don't understand science.


----------



## Dr. Middy

That Juile chick is right about a lot of things, especially nuclear energy, and it always dismays me how often some environmentalists reject it completely. But she does come across somewhat annoying in that video, not gonna lie :lol

There's endless reasons to be concerned about global climate change, but the alarmist nature I see and hear is never going to work, especially the ones who think we're going to suddenly start dying out in a decade or so.


----------



## Miss Sally

So Bernie had a heart attack and Warren is looking more popular. 

I don't see Warren's marine lover hurting her too much but kind of dispels her family friendliness. She's nothing more than neo lib warhawk though. 

Climate alarmists do more harm to their cause than good, also seems Greta is losing a bit of steam and as i said would happen, her being white is being brought up in non-white climate circles.


----------



## CamillePunk

This is the only place I've actually heard anything about Warren having a marine lover. :lol Jacob Wohl is a completely irrelevant entity.


----------



## Draykorinee

Losing steam after a year of high public attention is not a bad thing, not that she is losing steam. 16 year olds need time to be 16.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://alphanewsmn.com/david-steinberg-tying-up-loose-threads-in-the-curious-case/

I'll post this again since it was ignored last time and people have just gone on pretending that I never posted it.  

Nothing in this report has ever been challenged by the mainstream media which refuses to touch this story with a 10-ft pole other than to call it a "conspiracy theory", and Ilhan has since deleted tweets of hers from several years back which back up this reporting. There is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that Ilhan committed marriage fraud. Sorry if that conflicts with some of your biases but let's focus on the facts please. There should be a full investigation, and the media and Democrat-sympathizers (domestic and foreign, because evidently that's a thing) need to stop gaslighting people by refusing to acknowledge that there is any smoke here.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

skypod said:


> Jacob Wohl's latest antics are going to end up making Warren more popular. What a fucking tool.
> 
> 
> I stand by that only Bernie won't "shrink" next to Trump in debates. The rest all have things Trump can distract and bully from. Yang will split independent/moderate right vote but all Trump has to do is force him into identity politics and Yang will lose swing voters (saying things like immigrants aren't the biggest concern and presidents shouldn't engage in illegal activity is seemingly seen as weak and pandering and the opposite to what America is about).


the fact that yang is still going is... kind of scary. and i don't appreciate how right leaning people have deemed him an honorary ally because he doesn't engage in identity politics and sticks it to SJW's. i mean yea that's fine and all sure but UBI is the most ridiculous policy being talked about among the democratic field. 

and that's saying something considering you have bernie sanders and elizabeth warren and all of their batshit ideas.


----------



## FriedTofu

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/7/20902700/daryl-morey-tweet-china-nba-hong-kong

NBA and Chinese politics crossover. Surprised there isn't more talk from right wingers here about censorship, or more support for Morey from left-wingers that suck off black athletes for speaking out on social issues. This is truely a wild time we live in where billionaires in the richest country in the world have to bow down to a government holding access to a market of 1.4 billion with a rising middle class.

Beto and Ted Cruz agreeing on something is funny as fk too.


----------



## Reaper

The Doctor Middy Experience said:


> There's endless reasons to be concerned about global climate change, but the alarmist nature I see and hear is never going to work, especially the ones who think we're going to suddenly start dying out in a decade or so.


Posted a list of Climate Change Alarmist predictions on my discord server a few days ago. 

I believe it's fitting for this thread as well: 



> 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
> 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
> 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
> 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
> 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
> 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
> 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
> 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
> 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
> 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
> 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
> 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
> 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
> 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
> 2006: Super Hurricanes!
> 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
> 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
> 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
> 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
> 1970s: Killer Bees!
> 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
> 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
> 1970: Ice Age By 2000
> 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
> 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
> 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
> 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
> 1974: Another Ice Age?
> 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
> 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
> 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
> 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
> 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
> 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
> 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
> 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
> 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
> 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
> 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
> 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024


I'm sure this is not an exhaustive list. There are also some *very* strong links in here to the eventual oil crisis in the middle east. 

Especially the ones in the 60s and 70s where "oil depletion" was the alarmist prediction. Wonder if those were lies created to justify destroying the oil cartels through war and invasion. Alarmism simply *cannot* be allowed to become the way we shape our public policy. Alarmism (not just climate change related now) have led to several wars, mass hysteria and panic-riddled populations have led to far more deaths, both human and non-human than ever even remotely caused by climate change so far.


----------



## DesolationRow

Several "heavy-hitters" within the top tiers of the financial elite in the U.S. are declaring that millennials are "traumatized" and "scarred" by the financial crisis of the late 2000s, voicing the perspective of many on Wall Street and elsewhere that millennials are somehow shirking their duty to be good Americans and spend, spend, spend, spend, spend. The 8.0-9.0% U.S. savings rate is being considered somehow uncharacteristically high and by many downright deplorable. Evidently, with the caveat that a savings rate of that sort is nothing exactly to necessarily "write home about" as the cliche goes in any case, the financial squabble over this is nevertheless at least somewhat amusing. 

Could it be that rather than having been traumatized and/or scarred by the financial crisis, millennials are simply behaving more personally responsible than a significant segment of their baby boomer parents, whose midlife extravagances built on "conspicuous consuming"? Many baby boomers are reaching the point at which retirement beckons with next-to-nothing saved, finding themselves still working the same sort of office jobs they had decades ago simply to keep the wheel of their standard of living turning. It is conceivable that millennials observed the absurd degrees of consumer debt piled up by their parents, aunts, uncles, friends' parents, and others, and opted to go another path. 

Naturally they are to be made to feel guilty for this commendable frugality. Should the U.S. economy require "conspicuous consumption" perhaps the innards of said economy need to be heavily reworked. 

Having defended millennials in the past from time to time, it is oddly charming to dwell on today's breakfast for this poster, which was a sort of "super avocado toast," though with un-toasted bread! http://www.wrestlingforum.com/fantasy-games/2381416-last-thing-youve-eaten-36.html#post77855846


----------



## Draykorinee

Think it's fairly safe to say that attacks on millennials continue to be an utter failure, too busy buying avacado toast to buy a house and too stingy to spend money to boost the economy.

I think a lot of people think its their duty to malign the current generation to make themselves feel better. 

Just the other day someone shared a post on Facebook saying millennials shouldn't whinge about boomers messing up the environment as they were the last generation to not be raised using disposeable plastics and having milkmen etc. Well who the fuck raised the next generation you boomer dipshits?


----------



## RainmakerV2

I always think about it like this. If the climate was so bad the world was gonna END in 10 years, or even 100 years..what the hell could human beings do about it? Not a damn thing. When armageddon comes you'll know, and wont be a damn thing any of us or any amount of money can do about it.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181318739553374210
Yo why does this bitch lie so much? :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Losing steam after a year of high public attention is not a bad thing, not that she is losing steam. 16 year olds need time to be 16.


Yeah that's not the reason. Her "showdown" with Trump was a failure, her conscious stuff was nothing but publicity stunts. Non-white climate change advocates are turning on her, while they're a small minority on Twitter, it's the activists who listen to them. 



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181318739553374210
> Yo why does this bitch lie so much? :lol


No idea! It's weird. Also it seems the US is pulling back from NE Syria, Bernie is against it though, he's completely anti-war and wants to fix the Mid East but he wants troops there. :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Yeah that's not the reason. Her "showdown" with Trump was a failure, her conscious stuff was nothing but publicity stunts. Non-white climate change advocates are turning on her, while they're a small minority on Twitter, it's the activists who listen to them.


I didn't give a reason, so I don't know what you're on about when you say that's not the reason.

Her showdown with Trump got her global attention, mostly positive as well. I have no idea about non-white climate activists 'turning on her', I don't tend to care too much about skin colour when discussing climate change.

What have I seen is a bit more of a push against her getting the attention of the media when there are other people who have more knowledge and actual answers to climate change instead of just a message about it. I can get behind that, I refuse to acknowledge the push back from mostly hysterical middle aged men who mock her Aspergers.



RainmakerV2 said:


> I always think about it like this. If the climate was so bad the world was gonna END in 10 years, or even 100 years..what the hell could human beings do about it? Not a damn thing. When armageddon comes you'll know, and wont be a damn thing any of us or any amount of money can do about it.


Well, this is where climate change alarmism creates nonsensical arguments, the world is not going to end in 10 or 100 years.


----------



## Reaper

Boomers: Let's prevent minimum wage from being increased and not let millennials have any social benefits, increase the cost of homes, college tuition and everything else.
Also: Boomers ... Why are they not spending. 

They're not stingy. They're the poorest generation in terms of purchasing power in all the cohorts that came before them. Generation Z is going to be poorer.

And fucktards in the millennial generation also keep voting for corporate cocksucking neocons and neolibs. 

It's not just the Boomers that are soul sucking leeches and destroyers of western Civilization. Their brainwashed grandchildren are right there with them.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> I didn't give a reason, so I don't know what you're on about when you say that's not the reason.
> 
> Her showdown with Trump got her global attention, mostly positive as well. I have no idea about non-white climate activists 'turning on her', I don't tend to care too much about skin colour when discussing climate change.
> 
> What have I seen is a bit more of a push against her getting the attention of the media when there are other people who have more knowledge and actual answers to climate change instead of just a message about it. I can get behind that, I refuse to acknowledge the push back from mostly hysterical middle aged men who mock her Aspergers.
> .


What showdown? He ignored her. She's nothing more than a puppet used by alarmists and people fleecing money off the climate change hysteria. Reaper posted a video of another girl like Greta talking about Climate Change. She's not the first, she won't be the last. She's a girl with a few issues who comes from a fairly wealthy family, she's white and self-righteous. She fits the knee jerk millennial cultists well. 



Reaper said:


> Boomers: Let's prevent minimum wage from being increased and not let millennials have any social benefits, increase the cost of homes, college tuition and everything else.
> Also: Boomers ... Why are they not spending.
> 
> They're not stingy. They're the poorest generation in terms of purchasing power in all the cohorts that came before them. Generation Z is going to be poorer.
> 
> And fucktards in the millennial generation also keep voting for corporate cocksucking neocons and neolibs.
> 
> It's not just the Boomers that are soul sucking leeches and destroyers of western Civilization. Their brainwashed grandchildren are right there with them.


Millennials are carbon copies of boomers. Like exactly the same. Gen X is different because they learned a lot from the GG before they retired and boomers took over everything. Boomers inherited so much and fucked everyone over, they're completely selfish and a huge part of the reason academia and the economy is the way it is. They love cheap, they love easy and they don't want to work for it. 

If millennials want to change stuff, they need to stop thinking like boomers, stop the virtue signaling, stop the entitlement and scrap the boomer mentality and fix things. We got a raw deal but we need to live in reality and fix the mess boomers left. I don't want to piss off zoomers, they're like Gen-X but mean!


----------



## Draykorinee

Carbon copy of boomers except without all the money and free stuff.


----------



## MrMister

A big difference in the bitching about previous gens is mils have social media to really annoy everyone. No other generation before them had this. So it's all magnified.

Boomers are the worst and mils are the most annoying IMO. I don't have a good read on Z yet.

Clearly the greatest is the greatest because they stopped the Nazis. That alone gives them a pass for whatever other bullshit they pulled.


----------



## Reaper

American Government: "Blockade and destroy everyone and everything for every country that doesn't agree with our way of doing things"

American Useful Idiots: "Look everyone, everyone is starving in those poor countries, we must violently change their leadership to help them". 

American Government: "Look at everyone starving everywhere. Let us bring our American Exceptionalism to them".


----------



## MrMister

The huge Venezuelan oil cache is juicy.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> The huge Venezuelan oil cache is juicy.


*everything*. 

One of the things people are forgetting about the Iraq "war" is that while there were oil contracts handed out to NATO companies, they were also given "rebuilding" and endless "security" contracts. It's *everything* any other country has that needs to be occupied. If there is a business in America that can profit from an occupation or a regime change, the American government will get involved.

They've done this to countless countries over the last few decades. Anything and everything to benefit any American corporation. Oil is a big one, but there were others as well that are equally profitable - if not even more.


----------



## DesolationRow

@Reaper;'s point about the anemic purchasing power of millennials--who are just now entering their prime "spending years" in any event--as well as the exorbitant costs of exercises which are deemed quintessential to "climbing the ladder" such as attaining that elusive grand college degree, housing, etc. These factors more than any "traumatizing" over the financial crisis of a decade ago are significant in steering their spending--or non-spending--habits. It is humorous to see members of the baby boomer _haut monde_ of financial circles bemoaning this fairly predictable phenomenon. 

@Miss Sally; Bernie Sanders's "Syrian stance" has been schizophrenic for years. In many 2015 interviews he was the proto-liberal interventionist squealing about human rights abuses and declaring that the world must somehow roll back the iniquities of the Bashar al-Assad regime, but he was also one of the first in line to harshly criticize Donald Trump's April 2017 and April 2018, declaring them illegal. Granted, his position on the latter fits together unto itself, but when conjoined to the earlier bout of rhetoric, it hardly does. Now Sanders is stomping his feet alongside Liz Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, and a brigade of "laptop bombardiers" as the late Justin Raimondo might call them (Rest In Peace, friend) in verbally NFL-tackling Trump over his efforts to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. The liberal interventionists are the most befuddling group of all in how they want to simultaneously protect the Kurds from Turkish aggression but as with Sanders's points pertaining to Trump's twin Syrian strikes, angrily tout such actions as illegal. The U.S. is to be armed guard but powerless to perform acts in the carrying out of said guardianship? And for how long? Cheney, Graham and Romney are particularly vocal about having to stay in Syria evidently perpetually to protect the Kurds. The Turks had occupied the Syrian border west of the Euphrates; the Kurds left the area, and while the Turks were doubtless stern in their approach to the occupation, there was no major instance of aggression or violence.

Seems like a good deal of Washington, D.C. war hawks are testy because Assad, Vladimir Putin and the Iranian regime effectively prevailed over their financed and trained Sunni Arab terrorists.


----------



## Reaper

Another interesting evolution of the millennials @DesolationRow; is this generation's undying loyalty to brand names and defense of organizations instead of holding them accountable for their own troubles. 

Disney studios has employees eating out of trashcans. Yet in a corporate slug-fest between Sony and Disney where Disney was being greedy millennials everywhere were screeching hysterically about losing their ability to watch Spider-man in the MCU. Instead of examining the politics of manufactured controversy by film studios that are literally branding activism to sell back to the "wokest" of them all, they're literally demanding that normal folk HAND their money over to mega-corporations to support their fake SJW agendas instead of demanding that those same organizations improve worker conditions. Brand Loyalty has become the new patriotism where instead of aligning themselves with social causes millennials and gen z are unaware that their allegiances to corporate entities who are buying their loyalty through their fake activism is doing more damage to their pet "woke" social causes. 

A corporate entity and its followers are the "nu" "patriots" who are willing to do to any lengths to protect their corporations and decieve themselves of their human rights violations. People are NOT willing to reduce their carbon footprint in favor of their conveniences and that is a fact. Climate Change is happening because people are loyal to the brands that know full well that people are hooked on their conveniences and simply cannot let them go. 

Fucked up priorities are there as well. Can't deny that. Millennials have fucked up priorities especially with regards to activating social change with regards to living conditions are required. They are the first cohort that are raised in a branded world and they choose brands over rights at every opportunity they get too. Apple raised the price of a $400 phone to $1000 and anyone with a course in economics 101 knows what economies of scale is and that with increased production costs always go down, not up. But did Apple lose market share? Nope. The fuckers are out there buying $1000 phones even WHEN $200 equivalent alternatives exist. This applies to so many other companies and products as well. 

Yes, poverty for millennials is a thing, but so are fucked up buying habits ... because well, they were actually raised in a life of plenty and so don't have the necessary cost cutting habits nor have the ability or desire to demand lower prices. I remember back in the day you could call up your phone company and demand that they give you a better deal. Who does that anymore?

The sad thing is, the alienation and struggle they face today while "divided" between a fake "left vs right" manufactured dichotomy is essentially the same struggle for better overall rights to just reward for the hard work they do. Millennials aren't lazy. Aren't stingy. Are aware of what they need in life. But are both denied the opportunity to assert their influence towards demanding change, as well as denied the leadership that is capable of doing so ... 

The leadership that can change this country simply does not exist too. And this a big part of the problem. 

Bernie has the right ideas. But he's largely a centrist who wants to increase spending in social welfare programs. Which is really just short-term measures to stop the bleeding.


----------



## DesolationRow

The love affair and even identification with corporate brands for a generally deracinated horde of consumers (the Marvel/DC split in "fandom" sometimes feels like the present U.S.'s "Cold Thirty Years War") is truly occasionally quite the panorama to see, @Reaper;. 

Edward Bernays and his cohorts helped to lay the postmodern foundation for this, ha.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reaper said:


> Disney studios has employees eating out of trashcans. Yet in a corporate slug-fest between Sony and Disney where Disney was being greedy millennials everywhere were screeching hysterically about losing their ability to watch Spider-man in the MCU.


people choosing to eat out of trashcans has nothing to do with disney.

no working person is _that_ destitute.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...low-down-on-campaign-trail-after-heart-attack



> Sanders says he'll slow down pace on campaign trail after heart attack
> 
> BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 10/08/19 07:08 PM EDT
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Tuesday that he plans to slow down his pace on the presidential campaign trail after suffering a heart attack last week.
> 
> Sanders spoke to reporters outside his home in Burlington, Vt., after going to see his cardiologist, saying he plans to do fewer events in the near future.
> 
> "I certainly intend to be actively campaigning," he said. "I think we can change the nature of the campaign a bit, make sure that I have the strength to do what I have to do."




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181689439690604545


> The Democratic presidential candidate said he had been doing "in some cases five or six meetings a day, three or four rallies and town meetings and meeting with groups of people."
> 
> "I don't think I'm going to do that," he said.
> 
> When asked what would change about the "nature" of his campaign, Sanders replied, "Probably not doing four rallies a day."
> 
> Sanders suffered a heart attack last week in Las Vegas, prompting his campaign to cancel his events until further notice.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> people choosing to eat out of trashcans has nothing to do with disney.
> 
> no working person is _that_ destitute.


What fantasy world do you live in?


----------



## Draykorinee

> Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay man $8bn over breast growth


American compensation culture is disgusting. Sure, breasts would suck, but $8 billion...


----------



## virus21

> A single act of protest during a video-game competition in Taiwan has garnered international attention and a massive backlash against one of America's largest and highest-profile video-game companies.
> 
> 
> Blizzard Entertainment is facing major criticism after punishing Blitzchung, a Hong Kong-based esports competitor who voiced support for Hong Kong's protesters during a Blizzard-run event on October 5. Blitzchung, whose real name is Chung Ng Wai, is a grand-master-level player in "Hearthstone," Blizzard's very popular digital card game.
> 
> During Blizzard's official broadcast of the Asia-Pacific Grandmasters competition, Blitzchung appeared in a post-match interview wearing a gas mask. As the broadcast ended, Blitzchung shouted "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age," with the apparent support of the two tournament broadcasters.
> 
> 
> ? Inven Global ?
> ✔
> @InvenGlobal
> [BREAKING] Hong Kong Hearthstone player @blitzchungHS calls for liberation of his country in post-game interview:https://www.invenglobal.com/article...eration-of-his-country-in-post-game-interview …
> 
> @Matthieist #Hearthstone
> 
> Embedded video
> 9,030
> 4:13 PM - Oct 6, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 4,676 people are talking about this
> Read more: California-based game company Blizzard bans pro esports player and confiscates his prize money after he voices support for Hong Kong protesters
> 
> Hong Kong has been under a condition of civil unrest for more than four months. Millions of people have marched to demand sovereignty from mainland China and protest increasingly poor socioeconomic conditions. The ongoing protests have already garnered international attention, with the territory's increasingly complex relationship with China's communist government as a core issue.
> 
> 
> Tencent, one of China's biggest companies and the largest video-game publisher in the world, owns a 5% stake in Blizzard's parent company, Activision Blizzard.
> 
> Blizzard responds with a one-year ban, withholding Blitzchung's prize money
> Blizzard responded to Blitzchung's comments by stripping him of any prize money he would have earned for the tournament and barred him from "Hearthstone" competitions for one year. Blizzard also said it would no longer work with the two broadcasters who were interviewing Blitzchung during his comments. The company deleted the match and interview footage from its official channels as well.
> 
> "Hearthstone" has an international tour, offering $1 million in prizes for top-level players this year. Blitzchung had earned at least $3,000 from his wins so far, with the potential to earn more in the competition's playoff rounds.
> 
> In the blog post announcing Blitzchung's ban, Blizzard said "we stand by one's right to express individual thoughts and opinions," but Blitzchung's comments were apparently deemed to be harmful to the company.
> 
> 
> Blitzchung himself seems to be standing by his comments: "I know what my action on stream means. It could cause me lot of trouble, even my personal safety in real life. But I think it's my duty to say something," he said, according to a statement shared on Twitter by Victims of Communism, a human-rights group.
> 
> Fans pledge to boycott Blizzard as critics suggest a bias toward China
> Blizzard's decision has sparked outrage from Americans, who say Blitzchung's comments should be protected as free speech — especially given that Blizzard is an American company. Supporters of the protests in Hong Kong accused Blizzard of compromising its principles to protect its business interests in China.
> 
> Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon was one of the many voices that came to Blitzchung's defense, accusing Blizzard of censorship.
> 
> "Blizzard shows it is willing to humiliate itself to please the Chinese Communist Party," Wyden tweeted. "No American company should censor calls for freedom to make a quick buck."
> 
> 
> 
> Sarfaraz
> @LacesNjoysticks
> [email protected]_Ent thank you for assuring that I will not purchase another game from you so long as you stand against the people of #hongkong fighting for their democracy, their lives and their place in the world. I guess money erases any sense of shame you should have over this
> 
> 16
> 8:57 AM - Oct 8, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> See Sarfaraz's other Tweets
> Upset fans have flooded Reddit message boards for Blizzard's most popular games with posts calling for boycotts of Blizzard. The main subreddit dedicated to Blizzard titles, "r/Blizzard," was set to private mode by the moderators because of the intense backlash.
> 
> 
> Sam Sykes
> ✔
> @SamSykesSwears
> The Blizzard subreddit has been made private. Really sleazy--if you're going to do something villainous, you can't flee from the lumps you're going to take from it.
> 
> 1,453
> 1:54 PM - Oct 8, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 215 people are talking about this
> Kevin Hovdestad, a former Blizzard employee, said on Twitter that the backlash seemed to be brewing internally: Someone covered up two of the company's key values — "Think Globally" and "Every Voice Matters" — enshrined on a statue at the company's headquarters.
> 
> 
> Kevin Hovdestad
> ✔
> @lackofrealism
> Not everyone at Blizzard agrees with what happened.
> 
> Both the "Think Globally" and "Every Voice Matters" values have been covered up by incensed employees this morning.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> 38.9K
> 1:38 PM - Oct 8, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 11.8K people are talking about this
> 
> 
> Blizzard is the latest American company to face criticism for its relationship to China. The NBA is also embroiled in its own controversy involving Hong Kong and China after the Houston Rockets general manager Darryl Morey shared a tweet in support of the protests. Morey later apologized and deleted the tweet, but the situation has strained the league's relationship with China.


https://www.businessinsider.com/blizzard-blitzchung-hong-kong-china-hearthstone-boycott-outrage-2019-10?utm_source=reddit.com


----------



## virus21

> A new book-length study on the tax burden of the ultrarich begins with a startling finding: In 2018, for the first time in history, America's richest billionaires paid a lower effective tax rate than the working class.
> 
> "The Triumph of Injustice," by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California at Berkeley, presents a first-of-its kind analysis of Americans' effective tax rates since the 1960s. It finds that in 2018 the average effective tax rate paid by the richest 400 families in the country was 23 per cent, a full percentage point lower than the 24.2 per cent rate paid by the bottom half of American households.
> 
> In 1980, by contrast, the 400 richest had an effective tax rate of 47 per cent. In 1960, their tax rate was as high as 56 per cent. The effective tax rate paid by the bottom 50 per cent, by contrast, has changed little over time.
> 
> The tipping point came in 2017 with the passage of Donald Trump's tax cuts. They were a windfall for the wealthy.
> The tipping point came in 2017 with the passage of Donald Trump's tax cuts. They were a windfall for the wealthy.CREDIT:AP
> 
> The analysis differs from many other published estimates of tax burdens by encompassing the totality of taxes Americans pay: not just federal income taxes but also corporate taxes, as well as taxes paid at the state and local levels. It also includes the burden of about $US250 billion of what Saez and Zucman call "indirect taxes," such as licenses for motor vehicles and businesses.
> 
> RELATED ARTICLE
> Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, has saved 13 million lives.
> FOREIGN AID
> World has turned its back on the poor and the sick
> Add to shortlist
> The analysis, which was the subject of a column in The New York Times on Monday, is also notable for the detailed breakdown of the tax burden of not just the top 1 per cent but also the top 0.1 per cent, the top 0.01 per cent and the 400 richest households.
> 
> The focus on the ultrarich is necessary, Saez and Zucman write, because those households control a disproportionate share of national wealth: The top 400 families have more wealth than the bottom 60 per cent of households, while the top 0.1 per cent own as much as the bottom 80 per cent. The top 400 families are a "natural reference point," Zucman says, because the IRS publishes information on the top 400 taxpayers as a group, and other sources, such as Forbes, track the fortunes of the 400 wealthiest Americans.
> 
> The relatively small tax burden of the super-rich is the product of decades of choices made by American politicians, some deliberate, others the result of indecisiveness or inertia, Saez and Zucman say. Congress has repeatedly slashed top income tax rates, for instance, and cut taxes on capital gains and estates. Politicians have also failed to provide adequate funding for IRS enforcement efforts and allowed multinational companies to shelter their profits in low-tax countries.
> 
> Trump's tipping point
> But the tipping point came in 2017, with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That bill, championed by President Donald Trump and then-House Speaker Paul Ryan, was a windfall for the wealthy: It lowered the top income tax bracket and slashed the corporate tax rate.
> 
> By 2018, according to Saez and Zucman, the rich were already enjoying the fruits of that legislation: The average effective tax rate paid by the top 0.1 per cent of households dropped by 2.5 percentage points. The benefits the bill's supporters promised - higher rates of growth and business investment and a shrinking deficit - have largely failed to materialise.
> 
> Not all economists accept Saez and Zucman's analysis. It is based in part on their previous work, along with French economist Thomas Piketty, on the distribution of wealth and income in American society. Other economists have generated estimates of that distribution that show smaller disparities between the country's haves and have-nots. Saez, Zucman and Piketty have defended their research and maintain that their methods are the most accurate.
> 
> On the question of tax burdens, Jason Furman, an economics professor at Harvard who chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama, noted that Saez and Zucman did not include refundable tax credits, such as the earned-income tax credit (EITC), in their analysis.
> 
> The credit, which is intended to encourage low-income families to work, "is part of the tax code," Furman said. A person who paid $US1,000 in federal income taxes and then received a $US1,500 credit would have a total federal tax burden of minus $US500, but Furman said that under Saez and Zucman's analysis, that person would instead show a burden of $US0. That result would make total tax burdens at the lower end of the income spectrum appear higher than they actually are.
> 
> RELATED ARTICLE
> Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates gets a daily news digest with a wide array of topics, and he gets alerts for stories on Berkshire Hathaway, where he sits on the board of directors.
> RICH FAMILIES
> Why Bill Gates is right to support a 'wealth tax' for the super rich
> Add to shortlist
> "The best estimates indicate that the tax system is progressive - with the rich paying a higher tax rate than everyone else," Furman said.
> 
> Zucman countered that his and Saez's analysis considers the EITC and other credits like it as transfers of income, akin to food stamps or jobless benefits, rather than tax provisions.
> 
> "If you start counting some transfers as negative taxes, it is not clear where to stop," he said via email. "Do you treat the EITC as a negative tax? Veterans' benefits? Medicaid? defense spending? . . . There's no clear line, and the results become arbitrary."
> 
> There is general agreement among economists, however, that the tax burden of the rich has fallen considerably in recent decades.
> 
> "The rich definitely pay less in taxes than they did in the past and less than they should," Furman said.


https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/for-first-time-ever-us-billionaires-pay-lower-tax-rate-than-workers-20191009-p52yx4.html


----------



## Reaper

Why are the masses 9f America so retarded about politics? I mean there's plenty of outrage online about Chinese taking down content in video games. Ok cool.

No online outrage about their own government killing millions of people in wars around the world they started though.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> No online outrage about their own government killing millions of people in wars around the world they started though.


That would imply that they aren't selfish


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> That would imply that they aren't selfish


Saw the anti-chinese stuff combined with Jimmy Carter being a bad ass go viral yesterday at the same time. So much outrage over apologies and internet content taken down lol. 

Couldn't help but chuckle considering Jimmy Carter was a war criminal who continued funding and therefore creating both Al Qaeda and the Taliban eventually playing his own role in the 9/11 attacks. 

Same with Ellen and Bush. The upper class looking out for itself while the idiot serfs defending them.


----------



## FriedTofu

The outrage is because stuff that happened recently affected them directly. Why gatekeep over why people can't be outraged over it by comparing it to other horrible stuff they aren't outrage about?

I just don't like how people are framing it into a pro-democracy or freedom shit to virtue signal. The outrage should be over China's government and its nationalists using China's economic might to force people outside of China to self-censor themselves. Make no mistake about it, the outrage is real in China over Hong Kong stuff. Imagine 1/3 of China is nationalists like the MAGA asshats in America. 1/3 of China's population is almost the total number of people in America being outraged at pro-Hong Kong stuff.


----------



## Reaper

Ib4 someone accuses me of being pro-chinese government. I'm not. I'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of american masses ... because it's the masses that continue to ignore their own country's imperialism and mass murder while pointing fingers at others ... creating situations where it's easier for americans to kill others.


----------



## FriedTofu

I mean what can most people do about America imperialism? Geo-politics isn't as simple as playing a video game. Their ideal candidates can't unilaterally decide what the military can or cannot do without unintended consequences.

It is easier for most people to just stop supporting corporations that they disagree with. Speaking of which, it is funny how players are attempting to meme a character in OverWatch into a pro-Hong Kong character to try to get Blizzard banned in China.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> What fantasy world do you live in?


you can feed yourself on 5-8 dollars a day. even if you wanted to 'splurge' and treat yourself, you can feed yourself on 10-12 dollars a day. that's if you spent your money on prepared food. it would cost even less if you went grocery shopping for the week. 

go ahead and lie and tell me that working people cannot put aside money everyday to feed themselves. what could they possibly be spending the rest of their money on that's more important? wear the same two outfits a week if you have to.

if you're a working person and you're eating out of a *trashcan*, it's not because you aren't making enough money.

you watch too many movies (Y)


----------



## Tater

MrMister said:


> Clearly the greatest is the greatest because they stopped the Nazis. That alone gives them a pass for whatever other bullshit they pulled.


"They stopped the Nazis."

Just wanna take this time to note that the USA was lied into WWII, just like every other war.

@DesolationRow can attest to this. He knows the history better than I do.


----------



## Reaper

Am watching Oliver Stone's documentary series on WWII now and he presents a solid case for why it would Russia that won WWII and not the Allies.


----------



## MrMister

Tater said:


> "They stopped the Nazis."
> 
> Just wanna take this time to note that the USA was lied into WWII, just like every other war.
> 
> @DesolationRow can attest to this. He knows the history better than I do.


There were other people that weren't Americans that fought in WWII.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> go ahead and lie and tell me that working people cannot put aside money everyday to feed *themselves*.


Herein lies the strawman of argument. That's all I have any interest in discussing, this isn't a conversation I care to extend.


Can we all just admit that Britain and its Empire 'stopped' the nazis, because if we hadn't stood alone for ages, they would have had full control over Europe and most of Africa with utter free reign to send everything against the Russians, with full naval and air superiority. Of course the Russians and the US came and 'won' the war afterwards, thats not up for debate, our part though was to ensure there was still a war to be had.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> Herein lies the strawman of argument. That's all I have any interest in discussing, this isn't a conversation I care to extend.


yeah because you sound like a simpleton and you know you're wrong.

would you ever eat out of the trash? if so under what circumstances? if you had a job, please tell me at what point you would start considering it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Berzerker's Beard said:


> yeah because you sound like a simpleton and you know you're wrong.
> 
> would you ever eat out of the trash? if so under what circumstances? if you had a job, please tell me at what point you would start considering it.


Gr8 B8.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

dray you are the one who quoted me, not the other way around. 

you are the one who took issue with what i said, and now when asked to back it up you are deflecting.

(Y)


----------



## Reaper

Free HK people need to put their money where their mouth is literally and burn everything they own that was made in China. If you stop buying Chinese products you'll prevent them from amassing the kind of power they have. Simple. Anticapitalist /Anti-corporatist side wins. 

Lol. Like that's gonna happen. 

(I support activism of all forms btw). Just the hypocrisy is really hard to stomach. 

Btw, the last few countries Americans tried to "help" didn't end up so well. I kinda feel sorry for Hong Kong right now because they're caught between two authoritarian dystopias. That's always ended well.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Carbon copy of boomers except without all the money and free stuff.


Which is why it's weird so many latch onto everything boomers say, especially in academia.



Reaper said:


> Free HK people need to put their money where their mouth is literally and burn everything they own that was made in China. If you stop buying Chinese products you'll prevent them from amassing the kind of power they have. Simple. Anticapitalist /Anti-corporatist side wins.
> 
> Lol. Like that's gonna happen.
> 
> (I support activism of all forms btw). Just the hypocrisy is really hard to stomach.
> 
> Btw, the last few countries Americans tried to "help" didn't end up so well. I kinda feel sorry for Hong Kong right now because they're caught between two authoritarian dystopias. That's always ended well.


Wouldn't be such a problem if people weren't addicted to cheap and billions or dollars being tied up in China. Nobody is going to do much because our most "Progressive" companies like Apple and Google bow to the Chinese and work for/use them for labor. Perhaps it's not such a smart idea to be entangled up with a dictatorship that has a long history of human rights violations and fuckery.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Which is why it's weird so many latch onto everything boomers say, especially in academia.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't be such a problem if people weren't addicted to cheap and billions or dollars being tied up in China. Nobody is going to do much because our most "Progressive" companies like Apple and Google bow to the Chinese and work for/use them for labor. * Perhaps it's not such a smart idea to be entangled up with a dictatorship that has a long history of human rights violations and fuckery*.


Can't tell if you're referring to the US or China here.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

reaper word of advice don't ever become a wrestling booker.

framing *everyone* as a heel doesn't work (Y).


----------



## DOPA

@Draykorinee @Reaper @MrMister @Tater @DesolationRow

It's amazing that as soon as WWII is mentioned, Dray actually displays some British patriotism and national pride for once 8*D (I'm only teasing you mate  ).

There are a lot of different interpretations as to what brought about the result of WWII but the argument that has always made the most sense to me is not that the allies or the Soviet Union won the war but that Nazi Germany lost it.

Had Hitler not tried to fight a war on two fronts and most importantly, not tried to invade Russia in the middle of winter with forces stretched thin and not enough resources to combat the treacherous weather in a battle of attrition.....a mistake Napoleon made some 150 years prior, then most likely Nazi Germany with Mussolini backing them up along with the Soviet's still aligned would have taken over most of Europe. Let's not forget just how much of a war machine Germany was at that time, from a military standpoint what they achieved in as short amount of time as they did was nothing short of incredible.

I've seen the circles which argue that the Soviet Union had defended Europe from Nazi German rule but let's not forget that Stalin was more than happy to form a pact with Hitler to annex Poland and break it up, which was effectively the start of the war. In reality, the Soviet's only opposed Nazi Germany and changed sides in the war when Hitler re-negged that deal and turned against them. Stalin didn't go against Hitler because he saw Nazism as a major threat to the world which had to be defeated, he went against Hitler for self-preservation. Had it been the former, the Soviet Union would have never made that deal with the Nazis to begin with.

Of course realistically, the pact would have never lasted because one of Hitler's key ideological stances was anti-communism but whilst there were key ideological differences, they also had key goals which aligned, the biggest being expansion. The Soviet Union had always seen itself as the leading force behind an international communist movement which would one day overthrow capitalism, so it only made sense that Stalin would want to expand the regimes territory. In that sense alone without even digging into some of the similarities between Fascism and Communism in practice, the Soviet Union's goals were much more in alignment in 1938 with the Nazis than with the rest of Europe. It only made sense they would make an alliance along with Italy. Had Hitler never turned against the Soviet's, there would have been no reason for Stalin to join forces with Britain and France as he would have been achieving the Soviet Union's goal of expanding Communism.

Contrast that with Britain and France immediately declaring war on Germany as soon as aggression was shown to Poland and it's not hard to see in my opinion that the argument for the Soviet Union being the driving force to defeating Nazism collapses under scrutiny when we look at both the political reality at the time as well as the political goals of each of the players involved in the war. Simply put, I don't buy it, it feels like complete revisionist history to paint the Soviet's as the heroes when in reality they acted in their own self interest and not because they were so gigantically opposed to Hitler.

Of course, there are other key moments which drove home Nazi Germany's defeat. Like Dray said, without Britain holding off German invasion for so long, you wouldn't have had the conditions for the Americans to come in through baiting the Japanese and then letting them attack Pearl Harbour in order to change the American public's opinion on entering the war.....which Tater alluded to. Of Course the US entering the war completely changed the tide as far as Western Europe is concerned, without that intervention the Nazis may have never been defeated.

But had the Nazis attention had not been split between Britain and the Soviet Union and all of their forces were focused on the last remaining European ally, then it is unlikely the Brits hold on for as long as they did.....to which by the time the Americans did enter it would have been too little too late....and I say that as a Brit. 

In reality, I think that decision to turn against the Soviet's in the long run proved to be the downfall of the Nazis as it caused a lot of mistakes to be made by them and by contrast, helped turn the fortunes of the allies around. If that pact stays intact, I have a hard time believing we would have won.

But that's just my opinion .


----------



## skypod

Reaper said:


> Can't tell if you're referring to the US or China here.



Was thinking about this with the media today. Is the US any better off than state media when its owned by billionaires and panel shows are dominated by people who at the very least are on a higher end 6 figure income? Tricks such as making Bernie Sanders look redder in the face today with a tinted camera lense will always continue when someone wants to take on the ruling class.

Why is no-one demanding a mainstream show that only people who make 50 grand a year or less are allowed to participate in? Why does anyone think they're getting a fair shake of American politics when the only ones who have a voice have incomes the average person will never achieve?


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> Which is why it's weird so many latch onto everything boomers say, especially in academia.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't be such a problem if people weren't addicted to cheap and billions or dollars being tied up in China. Nobody is going to do much because our most "Progressive" companies like Apple and Google bow to the Chinese and work for/use them for labor. Perhaps it's not such a smart idea to be entangled up with a dictatorship that has a long history of human rights violations and fuckery.


Minor correction here. These companies bow to China mostly because of the potential market, not purely because of cheaper labor. As China become more prosperous, those assembly factories are moving to cheaper countries like Vietnam.

Think of it this way, China is 3 times the population of America. It has a growing middle class ready to be tapped to sell to. One factor that contributed to America's strength is everybody had to bow down to them to sell to their market. China is simply flexing with the same idea, only with 3 times the population and a totally shit government instead of a somewhat shit government.


----------



## virus21

> This week, Blizzard banned Hearthstone pro Blitzchung and revoked his prize winnings for expressing support for ongoing protests in Hong Kong. The action has resulted in worldwide backlash against the publisher, as fans threaten to boycott Blizzard to protest the Blitzchung ban. It seems many of Blizzard’s own employees are unhappy with the decision too, and have staged a walkout at the company’s Irvine, California office.
> 
> The protest took place on Tuesday afternoon, as a number of anonymous employees tell the Daily Beast. “The action Blizzard took against the player was pretty appalling but not surprising,” one employee says. “Blizzard makes a lot of money in China, but now the company is in this awkward position where we can’t abide by our values.”
> 
> One employee suggests this is the start of a new era at Blizzard. “Doing business in China, it’s been easier to ignore the authoritarianism of the government because they were asking us to do things like remove a skeleton. The stakes are so much higher now. What was previously an obvious decision is much less obvious now.”
> 
> A Reddit post from a person claiming to be a Blizzard employee shows a gathering of people at the orc statue outside the company’s office, holding umbrellas as a visual symbol that has been adopted by protestors in Hong Kong. The paper covering the company’s “think globally” and “every voice matters” slogans, which we heard about yesterday, is visible here.
> 
> More Hearthstone:
> Fans threaten to boycott Blizzard after the company punishes a pro’s Hong Kong protest support
> Hearthstone temporarily returns 23 Wild cards to Standard
> Hearthstone’s Tombs of Terror loot isn’t random and “we’ll see more Bob”
> Others involved with Blizzard have protested in their own way, too. Prominent caster Brian Kibler has announced that he will no longer be involved with the Grandmasters tournament. Collegiate team American university held up a sign saying “free Hong Kong, boycott Blizzard” during another tournament this week, as Rod Breslau reports. Blizzard subsequently canceled further interviews at the event.


https://www.pcgamesn.com/blizzard-hong-kong-walkout



> PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania -- A fan was ejected from a Philadelphia 76ers preseason game against the Chinese team Guangzhou Loong Lions on Tuesday night after holding signs and shouting support for Hong Kong.
> 
> The incident came as the NBA finds itself connected to the ongoing protests in China.
> 
> Sam Wachs and his wife were holding signs in support of Hong Kong during the 76ers game at the Wells Fargo Center, but those signs were confiscated.
> 
> "There's no foul language, no politics. I asked 'Why not?' They said, 'Don't give me a hard time,'" Wachs said in an interview with Action News.
> 
> 
> A fan was ejected from a Philadelphia 76ers preseason game against the Chinese squad Guangzhou Loong Lions on Tuesday night after holding signs and shouting support for Hong Kong.
> 
> 
> 
> Wachs admitted he then stood up and started yelling "Free Hong Kong" before being escorted out.
> 
> "I think it's (a) shameful, harsh reaction," Wachs added.
> 
> NBA commissioner says league will support freedom of speech
> 
> 
> Chinese state TV suspends 2 NBA preseason game broadcasts: as seen on 6abc Action News Mornings, October 8, 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, the 76ers issued a statement saying after "continued disruption," Wachs and his wife were removed from the game.
> 
> "The Wells Fargo Center's event staff is responsible for the security and comfort of all guests at arena events, including 76ers games. At last evening's game, following multiple complaints from guests and verbal confrontations with others in attendance, two individuals were warned by Wells Fargo Center staff about their continuing disruption of the fan experience. Ultimately, the decision was made by Wells Fargo Center personnel to remove the guests from the premises, which was accomplished without incident," the statement said.
> 
> 
> Sixers fan supporting Hong Kong ejected from preseason game: as seen on Action News Mornings, October 9, 2019
> 
> 
> 
> There are 1.4 billion people in China, many of whom are NBA fans and generate millions in revenue for the league.
> 
> Earlier this week, Houston Rocket's GM Daryl Morey's support of freedom for Hong Kong triggered backlash between China and the NBA.
> 
> On Tuesday, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said the league is not apologizing for Morey's since-deleted tweet showing support for anti-government protesters in Hong Kong, even after China's state broadcaster canceled plans to show a pair of preseason games in that country later this week.
> 
> Silver, speaking Tuesday at a news conference in Tokyo before a preseason game between the Rockets and NBA champion Toronto Raptors, went as far as to say that he and the league are "apologetic" that so many Chinese officials and fans were upset by Morey's tweet and comments that followed - but insisted that Morey has the right to freedom of expression.
> 
> "Daryl Morey, as general manager of the Houston Rockets, enjoys that right as one of our employees," Silver said. "What I also tried to suggest is that I understand there are consequences from his freedom of speech and we will have to live with those consequences."
> 
> 
> Protesters arrested during demonstration in Hong Kong. Watch this CNN report from October 6, 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> "We're strongly dissatisfied and oppose Adam Silver's claim to support Morey's right to freedom of expression," CCTV said in a statement. "We believe that any remarks that challenge national sovereignty and social stability are not within the scope of freedom of speech."
> The broadcaster is also reviewing all its cooperation and exchanges involving the NBA, said the statement posted to CCTV Sports' official social media account.
> 
> Download the 6abc app and get updates from Action News delivered to your phone
> 
> 
> The NBA is not the first major corporation to deal with criticism from China over political differences. Mercedes-Benz, Delta Air Lines, hotel operator Marriott, fashion brand Zara and others also have found themselves in conflicts with China in recent years.
> 
> Silver is going to Shanghai on Wednesday and said he hopes to meet with officials and some of the league's business partners there in an effort to find some sort of common ground. He said he hopes Chinese officials and fans look at the totality of the impact of the three-decade-plus relationship between the league and their country, and urged them to see his response while acknowledging there are political differences between the countries.
> 
> "I'm sympathetic to our interests here and our partners that are upset," Silver said. "I don't think it's inconsistent on one hand to be sympathetic to them and at the same time stand by our principles."
> 
> Wells Fargo Center unveils stress-relieving 'rage room' for Flyers fans
> 
> 
> 
> Inside the newly-transformed Wells Fargo Center, fans will find a unique room where they can “decompress.” (Video/ Wells Fargo Center)
> 
> 
> 
> Silver said the NBA did not expect CCTV to cancel plans to show the Lakers-Nets games. "But if those are the consequences of us adhering to our values, I still feel it's very, very important to adhere to those values," Silver said.
> 
> The rift between China and the NBA started late last week when Morey tweeted a now-deleted image that read: "Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong," in reference to months of pro-democracy demonstrations in the semiautonomous Chinese territory that has been mired in escalating violence between protesters and law enforcement.
> 
> Efforts were quickly made to defuse the impact; Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta said Morey does not speak for the Rockets, and Morey returned to Twitter on Monday in an effort to clarify his meaning. But damage was clearly done: At least one Chinese sporting goods company said it was no longer cooperating with the Rockets, NBA streaming partner Tencent - which has a $1.5 billion contract with the league over the next five seasons - said it would not show Rockets games and a sports news website in China said it was no longer covering the team.


https://abc13.com/sports/free-hong-kong-chants-get-fans-kicked-out-of-nba-game/5606342/


----------



## Reaper

What's happening with US companies taking it up the ass for China is basically what happens when you give corporations unbridled lack of restrictions to operate with impunity around the world. 

Amerikkkan companies helping Hitler murder the Jews should have been the final straw to not support fascism abroad but what did this country do after hundreds of its companies were implicated in appeasing Hitler? 

Nothing. And this is why history repeats itself.

It's about money in the end. And when you remove morality from the profit motive, bad things happen.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Can't tell if you're referring to the US or China here.


Both. :laugh:



DOPA said:


> @Draykorinee @Reaper @MrMister @Tater @DesolationRow
> 
> It's amazing that as soon as WWII is mentioned, Dray actually displays some British patriotism and national pride for once 8*D (I'm only teasing you mate  ).
> 
> There are a lot of different interpretations as to what brought about the result of WWII but the argument that has always made the most sense to me is not that the allies or the Soviet Union won the war but that Nazi Germany lost it.
> 
> Had Hitler not tried to fight a war on two fronts and most importantly, not tried to invade Russia in the middle of winter with forces stretched thin and not enough resources to combat the treacherous weather in a battle of attrition.....a mistake Napoleon made some 150 years prior, then most likely Nazi Germany with Mussolini backing them up along with the Soviet's still aligned would have taken over most of Europe. Let's not forget just how much of a war machine Germany was at that time, from a military standpoint what they achieved in as short amount of time as they did was nothing short of incredible.
> 
> I've seen the circles which argue that the Soviet Union had defended Europe from Nazi German rule but let's not forget that Stalin was more than happy to form a pact with Hitler to annex Poland and break it up, which was effectively the start of the war. In reality, the Soviet's only opposed Nazi Germany and changed sides in the war when Hitler re-negged that deal and turned against them. Stalin didn't go against Hitler because he saw Nazism as a major threat to the world which had to be defeated, he went against Hitler for self-preservation. Had it been the former, the Soviet Union would have never made that deal with the Nazis to begin with.
> 
> Of course realistically, the pact would have never lasted because one of Hitler's key ideological stances was anti-communism but whilst there were key ideological differences, they also had key goals which aligned, the biggest being expansion. The Soviet Union had always seen itself as the leading force behind an international communist movement which would one day overthrow capitalism, so it only made sense that Stalin would want to expand the regimes territory. In that sense alone without even digging into some of the similarities between Fascism and Communism in practice, the Soviet Union's goals were much more in alignment in 1938 with the Nazis than with the rest of Europe. It only made sense they would make an alliance along with Italy. Had Hitler never turned against the Soviet's, there would have been no reason for Stalin to join forces with Britain and France as he would have been achieving the Soviet Union's goal of expanding Communism.
> 
> Contrast that with Britain and France immediately declaring war on Germany as soon as aggression was shown to Poland and it's not hard to see in my opinion that the argument for the Soviet Union being the driving force to defeating Nazism collapses under scrutiny when we look at both the political reality at the time as well as the political goals of each of the players involved in the war. Simply put, I don't buy it, it feels like complete revisionist history to paint the Soviet's as the heroes when in reality they acted in their own self interest and not because they were so gigantically opposed to Hitler.
> 
> Of course, there are other key moments which drove home Nazi Germany's defeat. Like Dray said, without Britain holding off German invasion for so long, you wouldn't have had the conditions for the Americans to come in through baiting the Japanese and then letting them attack Pearl Harbour in order to change the American public's opinion on entering the war.....which Tater alluded to. Of Course the US entering the war completely changed the tide as far as Western Europe is concerned, without that intervention the Nazis may have never been defeated.
> 
> But had the Nazis attention had not been split between Britain and the Soviet Union and all of their forces were focused on the last remaining European ally, then it is unlikely the Brits hold on for as long as they did.....to which by the time the Americans did enter it would have been too little too late....and I say that as a Brit.
> 
> In reality, I think that decision to turn against the Soviet's in the long run proved to be the downfall of the Nazis as it caused a lot of mistakes to be made by them and by contrast, helped turn the fortunes of the allies around. If that pact stays intact, I have a hard time believing we would have won.
> 
> But that's just my opinion .


Most of the stuff with the Soviets is revision. Without supplies from the Allies the Soviets would have never pushed anywhere near into Germany. Also for whatever reason Hitler invaded Russia in the winter for who knows what reason. Also on D-Day supposedly the Germans knew but didn't get the order to put tanks in position which would have made D-Day a massive loss. There's so much BS propaganda from WWII it's hard to believe a lot of stuff from that era. There's some absolutely horrible shit the Russians and Americans got away with during their push into Germany. 



Reaper said:


> What's happening with US companies taking it up the ass for China is basically what happens when you give corporations unbridled lack of restrictions to operate with impunity around the world.
> 
> Amerikkkan companies helping Hitler murder the Jews should have been the final straw to not support fascism abroad but what did this country do after hundreds of its companies were implicated in appeasing Hitler?
> 
> Nothing. And this is why history repeats itself.
> 
> It's about money in the end. And when you remove morality from the profit motive, bad things happen.


The only reason the US turned on Germany was because the American Nazi party was growing rapidly, fascism was growing and I'm sure they figured out if Germany won the war. It would only be a matter of time where sympathetic Politicians and Citizens would have given the party greater control in the US. Let's be honest here, America only reacts if they'll lose money or there's a threat of losing real power.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> The only reason the US turned on Germany was because the American Nazi party was growing rapidly, fascism was growing and I'm sure they figured out if Germany won the war. It would only be a matter of time where sympathetic Politicians and Citizens would have given the party greater control in the US. Let's be honest here, America only reacts if they'll lose money or there's a threat of losing real power.


Pre-history of WWII is a fascinating thing .. There were both puff pieces for Hitler throughout the states when he was first elected which changed in tone as his rhetoric against the Jews increased. They originally felt that it was just no big deal and nothing would come of it. 

Meanwhile, Hitler was praising the US for its stance on segregationism, as well as was a huge fan of the American KKK ... going so far as to claim that the americans just didn't go far enough with their attitude towards inferior races .. while simultaneously taking a lot of cues from the growing wave of racism in the states that was building up to a crescendo of its own in the 20's and 30's with the KKK numbering in the millions at one point.

Doing business with the Nazis was *never* a bad thing and American politicians actively sought to suppress local dissent when it came to the billionaires of that era to continue to do business with Hitler. 

Kind of a similar thing brewing here between the US and China here tbh (more economically since they're both essentially capitalist dystopias even if not socially). I hope it doesn't get that bad, but when two massive political and military powers combine like this, the little guy is *never* better off.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Pre-history of WWII is a fascinating thing .. There were both puff pieces for Hitler throughout the states when he was first elected which changed in tone as his rhetoric against the Jews increased. They originally felt that it was just no big deal and nothing would come of it.
> 
> Meanwhile, Hitler was praising the US for its stance on segregationism, as well as was a huge fan of the American KKK ... going so far as to claim that the americans just didn't go far enough with their attitude towards inferior races .. while simultaneously taking a lot of cues from the growing wave of racism in the states that was building up to a crescendo of its own in the 20's and 30's with the KKK numbering in the millions at one point.
> 
> Doing business with the Nazis was *never* a bad thing and American politicians actively sought to suppress local dissent when it came to the billionaires of that era to continue to do business with Hitler.
> 
> Kind of a similar thing brewing here between the US and China here tbh (more economically since they're both essentially capitalist dystopias even if not socially). I hope it doesn't get that bad, but when two massive political and military powers combine like this, the little guy is *never* better off.


It's interesting and weird, there's a lot of BS during that time. I'm unsure how much is manufactured or not. Supposedly stuff about Jewish treatment in Germany had been going on since 1919 or so, think the Jewish thing was a way for the Americans to have an excuse to cover up their war deeds as well as look good in the History books. 

The American public did not want to go to War. It was highly unfavorable and both the fascist and communist parties were gaining favor during that time period. The public wasn't happy with the Government one bit. The forgotten years as i call them 1910-1930 had anti-government, anti-police stances on the rise. A far cry from the Government cock sucking the public does today. By going to War the Government could distract the public and cull loads of men who were unruly by sending them to die. With so many men dead and people tired of fighting, the Government saved itself from being outright replaced. 

The whole WWII thing is that the Japanese and Germans were ultimate evil, yes they were evil but this coming from a Government that nuked a country that was on the verge of surrender, destroyed the Philippines with pointless battles, bombed and killed massive amounts of European peoples, starved off the Balkans and goaded Japan into war. This also includes the Soviet asshats who practiced their own genocides, aggressively fought with their neighbors and raped and oppressed everyone they could get their hands on. The masters of lying and bullshit propaganda. Someone had to be the good guys and the bad guys. Honestly they were all bad guys. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> The American public did not want to go to War. It was highly unfavorable and both the fascist and communist parties were gaining favor during that time period. The public wasn't happy with the Government one bit. The forgotten years as i call them 1910-1930 had anti-government, anti-police stances on the rise. A far cry from the Government cock sucking the public does today. By going to War the Government could distract the public and cull loads of men who were unruly by sending them to die. With so many men dead and people tired of fighting, the Government saved itself from being outright replaced.


Yeeeeup. Spot fucking on. The US at the time was having massive labor riots and striking of its own. The anti-racist movements and labor movements were starting to join hands. Post War America was characterised by The Red Scare which wasn't just about ending the threat of Communism in America but a smoke-shield used to persecute people who wanted better working conditions and to unionize. Then they sent off hordes of young men to wars in remote parts of the world and have continued this scam for 70 years since ... Constantly culling your own society of young men prevents it from rising up against the warmongerers and corporatists who continue to profit off their deaths. Of course killing millions of young men definitely helped the elites win the day and seize everything for themselves. Something we're still feeling the impacts of today.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Yeeeeup. Spot fucking on. The US at the time was having massive labor riots and striking of its own. The anti-racist movements and labor movements were starting to join hands. Post War America was characterised by The Red Scare which wasn't just about ending the threat of Communism in America but a smoke-shield used to persecute people who wanted better working conditions and to unionize. Then they sent off hordes of young men to wars in remote parts of the world and have continued this scam for 70 years since ... Constantly culling your own society of young men prevents it from rising up against the warmongerers and corporatists who continue to profit off their deaths. Of course killing millions of young men definitely helped the elites win the day and seize everything for themselves. Something we're still feeling the impacts of today.


Pretty much. It's funny that when several Governments are under threat of change, a great war breaks out and they must cull the population. I'm sure had Hitler not invaded Poland and Russia did so by themselves the US would have fought Russia and Japan. 

There's a reason History rarely talks about 1910-1930's US outside of prohibition etc is because it wasn't a good time. The US was going to go to War no matter what, cannot let any change happen and cannot upset the Elites. Gotta keep the people in line. I could go on about it more but will another time.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Pretty much. It's funny that when several Governments are under threat of change, a great war breaks out and they must cull the population. I'm sure had Hitler not invaded Poland and Russia did so by themselves the US would have fought Russia and Japan.
> 
> There's a reason History rarely talks about 1910-1930's US outside of prohibition etc is because it wasn't a good time. The US was going to go to War no matter what, cannot let any change happen and cannot upset the Elites. Gotta keep the people in line. I could go on about it more but will another time.


Why do you think JFK got shot?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182288645753098243
This seems like a rational and well-adjusted group of people to me.


----------



## Dave Santos

I think in regards to the NBA China situation the problems arise due to the companies promoting certain social issues for their domestic audience. Like how WWE keeps promoting causes not related to the in ring product on a tv broadcast or social media. So when they go to Saudi Arabia they are seen as hypocrites. Or when a story line is controversial they can face backlash. Same as NBA in this regard. The UFC has been more lenient in this regard since they have fighters from all backgrounds doing controversial things and saying inflammatory stuff. I have noticed rape jokes, inflammatory religious comments, pussy jokes. Heck even Daniel Cormier is making the rounds on some right wing channels lately. Boxing has had this occur as well. The NBA signed a massive deal with the United Arab Emirates/ABU DHABI and there is no controversy about fighting in the middle east. So what distinguishes the UFC vs the NBA? Is it the hypocrisy narrative? Would WWE be better to take the stance of the UFC vs the NBA?


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Dave Santos said:


> I think in regards to the NBA China situation the problems arise due to the companies promoting certain social issues for their domestic audience. Like how WWE keeps promoting causes not related to the in ring product on a tv broadcast or social media. So when they go to Saudi Arabia they are seen as hypocrites. Or when a story line is controversial they can face backlash. Same as NBA in this regard. The UFC has been more lenient in this regard since they have fighters from all backgrounds doing controversial things and saying inflammatory stuff. I have noticed rape jokes, inflammatory religious comments, pussy jokes. Heck even Daniel Cormier is making the rounds on some right wing channels lately. Boxing has had this occur as well. The NBA signed a massive deal with the United Arab Emirates/ABU DHABI and there is no controversy about fighting in the middle east. So what distinguishes the UFC vs the NBA? Is it the hypocrisy narrative? Would WWE be better to take the stance of the UFC vs the NBA?


nobody ever asked these corporations to take political stances and address political issues. that's the problem.

we know that the nba, nfl, disney, wwe etc... are huge fucking corporations concerned with only one thing. we accept that and we are fine with that. they provide us with entertainment and we in turn pay them money for it. we were never EVER concerned with their politics so long as they didn't outright commit treason against the U.S. or some shit like that.

i don't expect the nba to stop business with china nor should anyone else. the fans in china who love nba basketball should not be punished for the actions of their government. it's just the height of fucking comedy to watch them sweat and have to justify themselves after years and years of woke progressive bullshit.


----------



## Dave Santos

Berzerker's Beard said:


> nobody ever asked these corporations to take political stances and address political issues. that's the problem.
> 
> we know that the nba, nfl, disney, wwe etc... are huge fucking corporations concerned with only one thing. we accept that and we are fine with that. they provide us with entertainment and we in turn pay them money for it. we were never EVER concerned with their politics so long as they didn't outright commit treason against the U.S. or some shit like that.
> 
> i don't expect the nba to stop business with china nor should anyone else. the fans in china who love nba basketball should not be punished for the actions of their government. it's just the height of fucking comedy to watch them sweat and have to justify themselves after years and years of woke progressive bullshit.


So you believe organizations should do political stances/donations privately? Like NBA owners or wwe wrestlers and management donating on not behalf of their organization? WWE donates to many causes and usually that doesn't cause many problems. But once they start promoting it they receive backlash.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Dave Santos said:


> So you believe organizations should do political stances/donations privately? Like NBA owners or wwe wrestlers and management donating on not behalf of their organization? WWE donates to many causes and usually that doesn't cause many problems. But once they start promoting it they receive backlash.


corporations should not be taking political stances, period. i mean they certainly _can_ and they have that freedom, it's just fucking stupid.

like michael jordan famously said, "republicans buy sneakers too".


----------



## Reaper




----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182470527044243456
He's already apologized. :heston


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182470527044243456
> He's already apologized. :heston


Dissapointed Beto didn't top her and say his pronoun's in Spanish while skateboarding in a backwards baseball cap.


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> Why do you think JFK got shot?





CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182470527044243456
> He's already apologized. :heston


So did you see the video about the trans person that took the mic from a mom and her trans kid and went on a rant? It was pretty confusing.


----------



## skypod

As soon as the sun shines on healthcare, wealth disparity, power and control given to companies and people struggling more than ever, the identity politics blimp comes along and plunges everyone into darkness.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182470527044243456
> He's already apologized. :heston


"my pronouns are she, her and hers"

:: crowd cheers ::

lmao what are they cheering? the fact that she declared herself a normal human female?

of course chris cuomo's initial gut reaction was to respond with sarcasm because deep down even he knows the whole thing is ridiculous. his apology after the fact means nothing. in that moment we all saw what his instant reaction was.


----------



## virus21

Berzerker's Beard said:


> "my pronouns are she, her and hers"
> 
> :: crowd cheers ::
> 
> lmao what are they cheering? the fact that she declared herself a normal human female?


Seals always clap for you when you give them fish


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

virus21 said:


> Seals always clap for you when you give them fish


today it's declaring their pronouns, soon it will be a requirement of the candidates to declare their favorite harry potter movie.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182469667270488064


----------



## Draykorinee

Good on Steve kerr


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Draykorinee said:


> Good on Steve kerr


yes dray, it is very important we don't criticize or speak badly about the chinese government. america is no position to talk because it's just as eeeeeevil.

meanwhile in china:



> https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/09/asia/houston-rockets-fan-arrested-china-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
> 
> A 25-year-old Houston Rockets fan in China threatened to burn the Chinese flag in protest of the ongoing dispute between Beijing and the NBA team, and told police to "come and arrest him."
> 
> *He was behind bars hours later*


you and steve kerr should really head over to china and talk to this kid so you can tell him how much worse it is over in america and how lucky he is. 

i mean america is really just as bad! did you know that .00001% of the population are out there getting gunned down in shopping malls!?!?


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> Good on Steve kerr


You have a very distorted view of human rights if you think what he said is in any way coherent. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

Steve Kerr is a funny man


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182670592220246016
Whoever is advising this man is an incredible troll. I hear his name is John Miller.


----------



## deepelemblues

Robert O'Rourke is gonna have to get his arms amputated 

No one outside of the military should be able to possess DEM GUNS


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182830776284372992
So true, me.


----------



## skypod

Always find it so weird how on consistently wrong the Right have been when it comes to gay people. And they want to continue to bury their head in the sand and pretend they don't exist (we're not going anywhere btw) and raise socially inept teenagers who won't know what a gay person is until they leave home for college.

God forbid any one of their kids is gay, because they're on the fast track to suicide (not that right leaning people theoretically would mind losing a gay child to suicide)


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> Always find it so weird how on consistently wrong the Right have been when it comes to gay people. And they want to continue to bury their head in the sand and pretend they don't exist (we're not going anywhere btw) and raise socially inept teenagers who won't know what a gay person is until they leave home for college.
> 
> God forbid any one of their kids is gay, because they're on the fast track to suicide (not that right leaning people theoretically would mind losing a gay child to suicide)


Shapiro and his listeners are categorically low empathy individuals and he weaponizes them while pretending that he doesn't and his fans continue to suck his dick. He's beyond unhinged and I would take a dozen Alex Jones over that PoS.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182740490577481728
(they're gonna hide behind their "but he's invoking his 2nd amendment rights" bullshit here, but we know what he's doing).


----------



## deepelemblues

skypod said:


> Always find it so weird how on consistently wrong the Right have been when it comes to gay people. And they want to continue to bury their head in the sand and pretend they don't exist (we're not going anywhere btw) and raise socially inept teenagers who won't know what a gay person is until they leave home for college.
> 
> God forbid any one of their kids is gay, because they're on the fast track to suicide (not that right leaning people theoretically would mind losing a gay child to suicide)


this kind of casual bigotry against "right leaning people" is why the president is the president and why he will be re-elected


----------



## skypod

deepelemblues said:


> this kind of casual bigotry against "right leaning people" is why the president is the president and why he will be re-elected



Oh spare me. LGBT people are and have been killing themselves because of right wing bigotry they've faced all their lives. 

I feel absolutely nothing towards homophobic parents that lose a gay child. I hope the guilt stays with them till their dying day.


----------



## FriedTofu

Cucks here bashing Kerr about China while Trump has not said anything much about Hong Kong or Xinjiang. Projection at its finest.

Am I disappointed in Kerr and the NBA not standing up to China? Yeah. But I also understand why they won't say much after being slapped with a billion dollar clapback over a single tweet on a medium that is banned in China. When the President of America is too timid to say anything about it because of the ongoing trade talks, why is a sports league held to a higher standard? What can the NBA do to influence the situation in Hong Kong? Compared to Trump and the might of the US government?

Aren't MAGA folks here pro-voting with your wallets in boycotting corporations they disagree with? MAGA folks that choose to live in their own reality think their boycotts matter. You can try to deny it but what China did with their nationalists leading a boycott supported by the government is the stuff of wetdreams for MAGA people. At the end of the day, American conservatives bashing the NBA are just using the situation to delegitimize social issues in America, which is rather sad.


----------



## BruiserKC

Apparently the “stick to sports” crowd only believes in that if it’s politics they don’t agree with. Interesting. Not to mention the President has said nothing about Hong Kong and taken a stance to support their people. 

Anyway, it’s simple. The NBA knew what they were getting into when they started doing business with China. They can decide whether to continue to set up shop there or not. If the money is too much of a hassle, they can break off the agreement. 

For the fans that don’t like it, speak with your dollars. Don’t attend games, don’t watch them on TV, and don’t pony up for that new Zion jersey. If enough people hold out, then they might reconsider their stance. 

Free market at work.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

BruiserKC said:


> Apparently the “stick to sports” crowd only believes in that if it’s politics they don’t agree with. Interesting. Not to mention the President has said nothing about Hong Kong and taken a stance to support their people.
> 
> Anyway, it’s simple. The NBA knew what they were getting into when they started doing business with China. They can decide whether to continue to set up shop there or not. If the money is too much of a hassle, they can break off the agreement.
> 
> For the fans that don’t like it, speak with your dollars. Don’t attend games, don’t watch them on TV, and don’t pony up for that new Zion jersey. If enough people hold out, then they might reconsider their stance.
> 
> Free market at work.


steve kerr is free to say whatever he wants.

and we are free to ridicule him for it.


----------



## virus21

Well looks like Blizzard reversed some of it's decision on punishing that Heathstone player. He gets his earnings and ban is reduced to 6 months.

On that note:


> Blizzard Entertainment President J.Allen Brack has issued the company's first public statement since making the decision to punish Chung Ng Wai, better known as Blitzchung — a "Hearthstone" esports competitor who spoke out in favor of the protests in Hong Kong.
> 
> Brack's statement pushed back against the accusation that Blizzard made the decision to punish Blitzchung in order to protect its business interests in China.
> 
> "The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision," the statement reads.
> 
> Blitzchung wore a gas mask and called for the liberation of Hong Kong during a post-match interview on October 5. Blizzard responded by banning him from competition for one year, and saying that it would no longer work with the two commentators who conducted the interview. It also said at the time it would withhold several thousand dollars in prize money from Blitzchung.
> 
> Now, Brack said that Blitzchung and the two commentators conducting the interview had indeed broken the rules of the competition by not keeping the focus on the game. Ultimately, Brack wrote, Blitzchung had been punished not for his specific views, but rather for distracting away from the tournament by raising a political issue.
> 
> SPONSORED BY EXXONMOBIL.COM
> Sponsored Video
> Watch to learn more
> 
> VISIT SITE
> However, Brack said, the intial punishment may have been too harsh, and cut the one-year suspension to a six-month span. It also said that the two commentators would be given the same-length suspension, apparently rather than cutting ties entirely.
> 
> "There is a consequence for taking the conversation away from the purpose of the event and disrupting or derailing the broadcast," Brack's statement reads. "With regard to the casters, remember their purpose is to keep the event focused on the tournament. That didn't happen here, and we are setting their suspension to six months as well."
> 
> Brack also said blitzchung "should receive his prizing" but did not specify how much or when it would be paid out.
> 
> Critics, including Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, claimed earlier this week that Blizzard's punishment was an act of censorship designed to protect the company's interests in China.
> 
> SPONSORED BY EXXONMOBIL.COM
> Sponsored Video
> Watch to learn more
> 
> VISIT SITE
> Over the course of the four days after the original event, a group of about 30 Blizzard employees staged a walkout at the company's California studio, a pair of "Heartstone" commentators resigned from participating in the finals broadcast, and dozens of players took to social media to share pictures of themselves deleting their Blizzard accounts and canceling their World of Warcraft subscriptions under the hashtag "#BoycottBlizzard."
> 
> It remains to be seen whether Brack's new statement will quell the fires, or just stoke further protest.
> 
> You can read Blizzard CEO J. Allen Brack's full statement below:
> Hello Blizzard Community . . .
> 
> I want to take a few minutes to talk to all of you about the Hearthstone Grandmasters tournament this past weekend. On Monday, we made the decision to take action against a player named blitzchung and two shoutcasters after the player shared his views on what's happening in Hong Kong on our official broadcast channel.
> 
> At Blizzard, our vision is "to bring the world together through epic entertainment." And we have core values that apply here: Think Globally; Lead Responsibly; and importantly, Every Voice Matters, encouraging everybody to share their point of view. The actions that we took over the weekend are causing people to question if we are still committed to these values. We absolutely are and I will explain.
> 
> Our esports programs are an expression of our vision and our values. Esports exist to create opportunities for players from around the world, from different cultures, and from different backgrounds, to come together to compete and share their passion for gaming. It is extremely important to us to protect these channels and the purpose they serve: to bring the world together through epic entertainment, celebrate our players, and build diverse and inclusive communities.
> 
> As to how those values apply in this case:
> 
> First, our official esports tournament broadcast was used as a platform for a winner of this event to share his views with the world.
> 
> SPONSORED BY EXXONMOBIL.COM
> Sponsored Video
> Watch to learn more
> 
> VISIT SITE
> We interview competitors who are at the top of their craft to share how they feel. We want to experience that moment with them. Hearing their excitement is a powerful way to bring us together.
> 
> Over the weekend, blitzchung used his segment to make a statement about the situation in Hong Kong—in violation of rules he acknowledged and understood, and this is why we took action.
> 
> Every Voice Matters, and we strongly encourage everyone in our community to share their viewpoints in the many places available to express themselves. However, the official broadcast needs to be about the tournament and to be a place where all are welcome. In support of that, we want to keep the official channels focused on the game.
> 
> Second, what is the role of shoutcasters for these broadcasts?
> 
> 
> We hire shoutcasters to amplify the excitement of the game. They elevate the watchability and help the esports viewing experience stay focused on the tournament and our amazing players.
> 
> Third, were our actions based on the content of the message?
> 
> Part of Thinking Globally, Leading Responsibly, and Every Voice Matters is recognizing that we have players and fans in almost every country in the world. Our goal is to help players connect in areas of commonality, like their passion for our games, and create a sense of shared community.
> 
> The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.
> 
> 
> We have these rules to keep the focus on the game and on the tournament to the benefit of a global audience, and that was the only consideration in the actions we took.
> 
> If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.
> 
> OK, what could Blizzard have done better, and where do we go from here?
> 
> Over the past few days, many players, casters, esports fans, and employees have expressed concerns about how we determined the penalties. We've had a chance to pause, to listen to our community, and to reflect on what we could have done better. In hindsight, our process wasn't adequate, and we reacted too quickly.
> 
> SPONSORED BY EXXONMOBIL.COM
> Sponsored Video
> Watch to learn more
> 
> VISIT SITE
> We want to ensure that we maintain a safe and inclusive environment for all our players, and that our rules and processes are clear. All of this is in service of another important Blizzard value—Play Nice; Play Fair.
> 
> In the tournament itself blitzchung *played* fair. We now believe he should receive his prizing. We understand that for some this is not about the prize, and perhaps for others it is disrespectful to even discuss it. That is not our intention.
> 
> But playing fair also includes appropriate pre-and post-match conduct, especially when a player accepts recognition for winning in a broadcast. When we think about the suspension, six months for blitzchung is more appropriate, after which time he can compete in the Hearthstone pro circuit again if he so chooses. There is a consequence for taking the conversation away from the purpose of the event and disrupting or derailing the broadcast.
> 
> With regard to the casters, remember their purpose is to keep the event focused on the tournament. That didn't happen here, and we are setting their suspension to six months as well.
> 
> 
> Moving forward, we will continue to apply tournament rules to ensure our official broadcasts remain focused on the game and are not a platform for divisive social or political views.
> 
> One of our goals at Blizzard is to make sure that every player, everywhere in the world, regardless of political views, religious beliefs, race, gender, or any other consideration always feels safe and welcome both competing in and playing our games.
> 
> At Blizzard, we are always listening and finding ways to improve—it is part of our culture. Thank you for your patience with us as we continue to learn.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> J. Allen Brack
> President of Blizzard Entertainment


https://www.businessinsider.com/blizzard-ceo-statement-china-hong-kong-blitzchung-protests-boycott-2019-10

Yeah, it had nothing to do with your business interests:Brock


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182898119152766976
But public services will always cost less than private services because of that evil profit motive.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Apparently the “stick to sports” crowd only believes in that if it’s politics they don’t agree with. Interesting. Not to mention the President has said nothing about Hong Kong and taken a stance to support their people.
> 
> Anyway, it’s simple. The NBA knew what they were getting into when they started doing business with China. They can decide whether to continue to set up shop there or not. If the money is too much of a hassle, they can break off the agreement.
> 
> For the fans that don’t like it, speak with your dollars. Don’t attend games, don’t watch them on TV, and don’t pony up for that new Zion jersey. If enough people hold out, then they might reconsider their stance.
> 
> Free market at work.


God. I miss the days when Sports were considered the great uniter of nations and not the divider. 

Things are really fucking weird now. I hate it. 

Cricket and music are the only things in India and Pakistan that keep our countries somewhat together and has brought the two together in 70 fucking years of warring. We had a successful bilateral exchange of prisoners rotting in each others' jails for decades as a result of a successful sports exchange which led the charge in allowing people from India and Pakistan to meet each other for the first time in decades. India and Pakistan both became more populist over time unfortunately and both became less tolerant of each other once the sports and cultural exchanges were ended. Who suffers in the end. Not the fucking governments for sure. 

People need to be finding ways to co-exist and not create new mangled reasons to hate each other. Ultimately political divides create even MORE suffering for the masses, not less. It's an extremely privileged view of westerners to INTENTIONALLY provoke the Chinese government into taking actions that will ONLY hurt the chinese people MORE not less through their authoritarianism. It's so easy to sit here and have all the privileges of freedom while intentionally trying to get some other government from taking things away from ITS people which is literally what's going to happen here. 

Cultural exchanges are the path to waking people up with regards to their regimes they're under the control of. Not fucking memes on social media and outrage over athletes involved in those cultural exchanges. 

Fucking hell.


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk




----------



## deepelemblues

virus21 said:


>


Nobody deserves a living wage

It's ignorant bullshit that does nothing but lose people their hours or jobs and prevent others from getting jobs

Ask the thousands of people who've had their hours cut or lost their jobs or haven't been hired because of MUH LIVING WAGE laws in dumbass cities run by people that couldn't find their assholes with a sherpa, a GPS and Pierre Woodman helping em

And like most left-wing dumbassery it hurts the working class the most. Living wage is a regressive indirect job tax on the poor. The costs are avoided by employers by their not hiring or not retaining unskilled labor 

Living wage has done great for ultrarich techies that make robots to replace unskilled labor though


----------



## virus21

> Uganda’s government announced plans Thursday to reintroduce a bill which would impose death penalty on homosexuals in the East African country.
> 
> “Homosexuality is not natural to Ugandans, but there has been a massive recruitment by gay people in schools, and especially among the youth, where they are promoting the falsehood that people are born like that,” Ethics and Integrity Minister Simon Lokodo told Reuters. “Our current penal law is limited. It only criminalizes the act. We want it made clear that anyone who is even involved in promotion and recruitment has to be criminalized. Those that do grave acts will be given the death sentence.”
> 
> The bill, popularly known as the “Kill the Gays”, was nullified five years ago on a technicality, but the government now has plans to resurrect it within weeks.
> 
> Homosexuality is prohibited in many African countries. Same-sex relationships are considered taboo and gay sex is a crime across most of the continent, with punishments ranging from imprisonment to death. As of 2016, same-sex sexual acts were outlawed in 33 of the 54 African countries recognized by the United Nations. Homosexuality is punishable by death in Sudan, Somalia, Mauritania and northern Nigeria.
> 
> According to Fox News, the sultan of Brunei announced plans earlier this year to make gay sex punishable by death through stoning or whipping, before walking back the plans after the news sparked an international outcry. Many U.S. celebrities, including Elton John and George Clooney, announced they would boycott hotels owned by Dorchester Collection Group, which a Brunei-owned investment agency runs. Several international banks, including J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, said they were banning their employees from staying at Dorchester-run hotels, such as the Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles and its London flagship The Dorchester, as a protest.
> 
> PHILIPPINES PRESIDENT DUTERTE SAYS HE HAS “CURED” HIMSELF OF HOMOSEXUALITY WITH THE HELP OF BEAUTIFUL WOMEN
> 
> 
> 
> Lokodo said the bill, which is supported by Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, will be brought before parliament in the coming weeks and he expects it to be voted on or before end of the year. He was optimistic it would achieve the necessary two-thirds majority vote, as the government has lobbied legislators ahead of its re-introduction.
> 
> Uganda faced worldwide condemnation after the original “Kill the Gays” bill was signed into law in 2014. The U.S. reduced aid, imposed visa restrictions and canceled joint military exercises. The World Bank, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands also suspended or redirected aid.
> 
> PRINCE HARRY SUES TWO BRITISH TABLOIDS FOR ALLEGEDLY HACKING HIS PHONE AND STEALING VOICE MESSAGES
> 
> 
> 
> ‘We have been talking to the MPs and we have mobilized them in big numbers,’ Lokodo said. ‘Many are supportive.’ He said he was aware of the potential blowback.
> 
> “It is a concern,” Lokodo said. “But we are ready. We don’t like blackmailing. Much as we know that this is going to irritate our supporters in budget and governance, we can’t just bend our heads and bow before people who want to impose a culture which is foreign to us.”


https://www.mazechmedia.com/2019/10/uganda-announces-kill-the-gays-bill-that-will-impose-death-penalty-on-homosexuals/


----------



## Reaper

"Christianity isn't a religion of violence" is something you hear all the fucking time. But the above is a perfect example of what happens where it's allowed to have power and rise to power. The Catholic Church in particular.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda/



> Lively, a 56-year-old Massachusetts native, specializes in stirring up anti-gay feeling around the globe. In Uganda, which he first visited in 2002, he has cultivated ties to influential politicians and religious leaders at the forefront of the nation’s anti-gay crusade. Just before the first draft of Uganda’s anti-gay bill began circulating in April 2009, Lively traveled to Kampala and gave lengthy presentations to members of Uganda’s parliament and cabinet, which laid out the argument that the nation’s president and lawmakers would later use to justify Uganda’s draconian anti-gay crackdown—namely that Western agitators were trying to unravel Uganda’s social fabric by spreading “the disease” of homosexuality to children. “They’re looking for other people to be able to prey upon,” Lively said, according to video footage. “When they see a child that’s from a broken home it’s like they have a flashing neon sign over their head.”
> 
> Lively is not the only US evangelical who has fanned the flames of anti-gay sentiment in Uganda. As they lose ground at home, where public opinion and law are rapidly shifting in favor of gay equality, religious conservatives have increasingly turned their attention to Africa. And Uganda, with its large Christian population, has been particularly fertile ground for their crusade. Journalist (and past Mother Jones contributor) Jeff Sharlet has reported at length on the Family, a politically connected US-based ministry, which promotes hard-line social policies in the East African nation.


Interesting read on the role of western missionaries in advocacy of anti gay legislation in Uganda.


----------



## CamillePunk

Yeah I'm sure the Ugandans had some pretty progressive views on homosexuality before Christianity came along. :lol


----------



## Reaper

I cackled so hard at this. Pretty soon the "free HK" bullshit will be yet another virtue signalling *** as people will realize that they want their cheap products. Just like they do every single time America goes to war to keep their oil prices low.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> I cackled so hard at this. Pretty soon the "free HK" bullshit will be yet another virtue signalling *** as people will realize that they want their cheap products. Just like they do every single time America goes to war to keep their oil prices low.


Its almost if globalism is kind of a drawback when you want to moralize.


----------



## Reaper

americans need their slaves to survive. plain and simple.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> americans need their slaves to survive. plain and simple.


Westerners need their slaves.


----------



## Reaper

Everyone needs their slaves....


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> "Christianity isn't a religion of violence" is something you hear all the fucking time. But the above is a perfect example of what happens where it's allowed to have power and rise to power. The Catholic Church in particular.
> 
> https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda/
> 
> 
> Interesting read on the role of western missionaries in advocacy of anti gay legislation in Uganda.


Had a thought the other day about people like this. Now this obviously doesn't cover all of them but I'm wondering how many it does apply to. I was thinking what if, for at least some of them, their homophobia is a misplaced reaction to trauma. What if they were abused as children by pedophiles of their same sex and just can't make the distinction between them and regular adult loving gay people. They bring up the whole luring children thing a lot. Not that it excuses anything they're doing to gay people. Looked up the guy in that article and there was this.



> Lively was born and raised in the village of Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts, the oldest of six children. He became an alcoholic at the age of 12, an addiction he explains as a means to cope with an unhappy family situation. When Lively was 16, his father was committed to a mental institution, never to return. After graduating from high school in 1976, Lively spent the next 10 years "drifting around the United States, often homeless, sometimes sleeping under bridges and begging for spare change on street-corners."


Reading that, homeless teenager, alcoholic by 12 years old etc, I think it's a pretty good indicator of some shit happening to him in his formative years. Once again not giving him a pass for anything he's doing now, just wonder how many of his ilk might have similar backgrounds. People raised in a time where abuse was covered up by everyone to protect the predator and/or avoid the victim or the victim's family being involved in a scandal.

The victim doesn't get any help and the pain morphs into fear and hatred. Then along comes a religious figure telling them that those that are attracted to the same sex are evil and recruit children and the victim immediately joins up because from their point of view, for the first time, someone is saying what happened to them was wrong and evil, not understanding that there is a huge difference between a pedophile and gay people.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> Had a thought the other day about people like this. Now this obviously doesn't cover all of them but I'm wondering how many it does apply to. I was thinking what if, for at least some of them, their homophobia is a misplaced reaction to trauma. What if they were abused as children by pedophiles of their same sex and just can't make the distinction between them and regular adult loving gay people. They bring up the whole luring children thing a lot. Not that it excuses anything they're doing to gay people. Looked up the guy in that article and there was this.
> 
> 
> 
> Reading that, homeless teenager, alcoholic by 12 years old etc, I think it's a pretty good indicator of some shit happening to him in his formative years. Once again not giving him a pass for anything he's doing now, just wonder how many of his ilk might have similar backgrounds. People raised in a time where abuse was covered up by everyone to protect the predator and/or avoid the victim or the victim's family being involved in a scandal.
> 
> The victim doesn't get any help and the pain morphs into fear and hatred. Then along comes a religious figure telling them that those that are attracted to the same sex are evil and recruit children and the victim immediately joins up because from their point of view, for the first time, someone is saying what happened to them was wrong and evil, not understanding that there is a huge difference between a pedophile and gay people.


I get what you're saying, but he himself had to have gone through a significant dose of "born again" propaganda and brainwashing to become this hateful. Then he'd have to have gotten significant funding from "invisible" backers in order to continue to fund his missionary work etc. Western religious ministries are a major / massive institution with billions of dollars behind them to fund these programs locally as well as abroad. Religious institutions are not as innocent as some chumps like to believe they are. They want these kind of extreme evangelists to propagate ideas that the entire group believes and puts their financial resources behind to get to his stage. He's just a weaponized tool of a massive religious network.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> I get what you're saying, but he himself had to have gone through a significant dose of "born again" propaganda and brainwashing to become this hateful. Then he'd have to have gotten significant funding from "invisible" backers in order to continue to fund his missionary work etc. Western religious ministries are a major / massive institution with billions of dollars behind them to fund these programs locally as well as abroad. Religious institutions are not as innocent as some chumps like to believe they are. They want these kind of extreme evangelists to propagate ideas that the entire group believes and puts their financial resources behind to get to his stage. He's just a weaponized tool of a massive religious network.


Oh yeah I agree with that. I'm just saying the seed for it in the individuals could be what I was talking about.

It's really the same story over and over. Find disaffected young men and tell them their pain or problems are the fault of this "group". Then just feed them a steady diet of indoctrination, whether it's religious or racial or political, etc. Works every time unfortunately. 

I do think there are independent religious organizations that do believe in kindness and charity and good will etc. It's just they're usually small, cut off from the other groups, and aren't well known.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> I cackled so hard at this. Pretty soon the "free HK" bullshit will be yet another virtue signalling *** as people will realize that they want their cheap products. Just like they do every single time America goes to war to keep their oil prices low.


Pretty much, all just a song and dance and glorious virtue signaling.. oh I forgot "virtue signaling" doesn't exist to some people. :laugh: I can post something more about this later.




virus21 said:


> Its almost if globalism is kind of a drawback when you want to moralize.


Globalism is the worst thing to happen to society, yet so many dimwits advocate for it. You've no idea how many "Left" leaning people clamor for it yet fail to understand it's completely opposite to their beliefs.



virus21 said:


> Westerners need their slaves.


This is the reason we have no real border security, tolerate large amounts of crime, dictatorships and have trading, banking, lobbying and drug cartels running stuff. Cheap labor, cheap products and cheap replacements for people.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> This is the reason we have no real border security, tolerate large amounts of crime, dictatorships and have trading, banking, lobbying and drug cartels running stuff. Cheap labor, cheap products and cheap replacements for people.


Didn't the Western Roman Empire have this mindset?


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Didn't the Western Roman Empire have this mindset?


The fake concept of "scarcity" is no longer applicable or true in modern society. The last great problem left is in thinking that goods are scarce which is what keeps the class structures alive. End this thinking and encourage people to share instead of hoard and the vast majority of problems in the world end. 

It's also not basic human nature to be selfish either. It's a cultural mentality passed down through hundreds of generations of hoarders.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> The fake concept of "scarcity" is no longer applicable or true in modern society. The last great problem left is in thinking that goods are scarce which is what keeps the class structures alive. End this thinking and encourage people to share instead of hoard and the vast majority of problems in the world end.
> 
> It's also not basic human nature to be selfish either. It's a cultural mentality passed down through hundreds of generations of hoarders.


I agree. They're should be no reason for so many people to have such need in the world. But then the elite would have less.


----------



## CHAMPIONSHIPS

It's funny how people claim we live in a post scarcity world yet at the same time won't support a redistributive economic order - the only logical way forward post-scarcity


----------



## Reaper

This is why:


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> This is why:


I know thats suppose to be sugar, but well.....yeah


----------



## jroc72191

skypod said:


> Oh spare me. LGBT people are and have been killing themselves because of right wing bigotry they've faced all their lives.
> 
> I feel absolutely nothing towards homophobic parents that lose a gay child. I hope the guilt stays with them till their dying day.


man you must shit your pants when u meet LBGT conservatives like me then.


----------



## jroc72191

Reaper said:


> "Christianity isn't a religion of violence" is something you hear all the fucking time. But the above is a perfect example of what happens where it's allowed to have power and rise to power. The Catholic Church in particular.
> 
> https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda/
> 
> 
> Interesting read on the role of western missionaries in advocacy of anti gay legislation in Uganda.



dude at this point, it must be intentional how you folks dont seem to understand the difference between CATHOLICS and EVANGELICALS. EVANGELICALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE POPE


----------



## Draykorinee

jroc72191 said:


> dude at this point, it must be intentional how you folks dont seem to understand the difference between CATHOLICS and EVANGELICALS. EVANGELICALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE POPE


At no point in that quote did Reaper even put Evangelicals with the Pope, so what on earth are you on about?


----------



## Reaper

Catholics were forced to lose their violent majority and subjugated into accepting secular humanism as they lost power throughout the western world. They are subservient to secular laws wherever they exist. 

Though one could argue that their consistent refusal to abide by child rape laws wherever they still exist is a form of violence since rape is violent. It's not even a one bad apple issue since the list of Catholic child rapists is in the 1000s around the world within their clergy. That indicates a cultural and belief issue. 

But all we can ever do about that is talk about it because western society is still too pussified to bring rapey Catholics to justice. That sort of behavior is constantly enabled by those sympethetic to Catholic power structures.


----------



## Berzerker's Beard

Reaper said:


> The fake concept of "scarcity" is no longer applicable or true in modern society. The last great problem left is in thinking that goods are scarce which is what keeps the class structures alive. End this thinking and encourage people to share instead of hoard and the vast majority of problems in the world end.
> 
> *It's also not basic human nature to be selfish either*. It's a cultural mentality passed down through hundreds of generations of hoarders.


it 100%, positively is. are you going to tell me you've never been selfish in your life? come on now.

greed is a sin and no human being is without sin. when push comes to shove we all put our own self interests first so we are all selfish in nature whether we like it or not. it's all a matter of how we balance it in our daily lives and pay it forward when we can.


----------



## Rugrat

Berzerker's Beard said:


> it 100%, positively is. are you going to tell me you've never been selfish in your life? come on now.
> 
> greed is a sin and no human being is without sin. when push comes to shove we all put our own self interests first so we are all selfish in nature whether we like it or not. it's all a matter of how we balance it in our daily lives and pay it forward when we can.


Human nature is by definition whatever humans do. And if humans have been selfish for "hundreds of generations" as Reaper says, then we are selfish. Personally, from what I've read humans are selfish and altruistic.

We all yearn for more, but the only way to get ahead is at someone else's expense.


----------



## Miss Sally

Rugrat said:


> Human nature is by definition whatever humans do. And if humans have been selfish for "hundreds of generations" as Reaper says, then we are selfish. Personally, from what I've read humans are selfish and altruistic.
> 
> *We all yearn for more, but the only way to get ahead is at someone else's expense.*


That's evolution baby! We're probably the only species that hinders it's own evolution at every turn. Hinder maybe too soft of a word, we've wrecked it because we eliminated any nature predators and completely took nature selection out of the equation. Now stupid people do most of the breeding and inane ideals are worshiped.


----------



## Reaper

Remember when Lebron was everyone's favorite spokesperson when he spoke up against Trump. 

Now he's just a paid Chinese Government Shill. 

Gotta love neolibeerals. 

They're literally the biggest hypocrites of the political spectrum.


----------



## FriedTofu

Reaper said:


> Remember when Lebron was everyone's favorite spokesperson when he spoke up against Trump.
> 
> Now he's just a paid Chinese Government Shill.
> 
> Gotta love neolibeerals.
> 
> They're literally the biggest hypocrites of the political spectrum.


I don't see how this make them hypocrites. Remember you were shilling for Trump 4 years ago but now claim to be part of anti-Trump camp? You can change your opinion on Trump based on his actions, why not others on Lebron based on Lebron's actions?


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> I don't see how this make them hypocrites. Remember you were shilling for Trump 4 years ago but now claim to be part of anti-Trump camp? You can change your opinion on Trump based on his actions, why not others on Lebron based on Lebron's actions?


What actions? Not going off on some hysterical screeching like the neoliberals expected from him and are currently engaged in themselves?

Lol. I guess if you're not a autistically screeching about something these days you're liable to be judged by morons who don't have the ability to look at context.


----------



## Reaper

This is what LeBron said in full.



> "Yes, we all do have freedom of speech, but at times there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when you're not thinking about others and you're only thinking about yourself," James told reporters in Los Angeles.
> 
> "I don't want to get into a word or sentence feud with Daryl, with Daryl Morey, but I believe he wasn't educated on the situation at hand and he spoke," James said. He added, "And so many people could have been harmed, not only financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually."


Perfectly measured and reasonable statement. All he's saying is to be kind and to think that saying stuff has consequences. Quotemining mongs have blown this way out of proportion.

Adding more:



> James said players on the overseas trip had feared games would be canceled.
> 
> "You know, so many different events have been canceled throughout our time there, and all we kept saying is ... we flew all these miles to come over to China — we would love to play the game of basketball in front of the fans," James said.
> 
> When the NBA canceled news conferences for the teams last week, the league said the players "have been placed into a complicated and unprecedented situation while abroad and we believe it would be unfair to ask them to address these matters in real time."


I see absolutely nothing wrong with anything he said. At all. They're there to play in games. But there THERE. Not here. You've got your guys in the middle of this supposed totalitarian nightmare of a regime (fake news) so if you actually believe that this is a totalitarian nightmare why are you demanding that players who are THERE in the middle of it risk everything instead of doing their jobs and getting out of there. 

It's incredibly selfish and remarkably tone deaf.


----------



## FriedTofu

Reaper said:


> What actions? Measured non-hysterical screeching like the neoliberals expected from him.
> 
> Lol. I guess if you're not a autistically screeching about something these days you're liable to be judged by morons who don't have the ability to look at context.


He spoke against Trump online. Lebron could have choose to stay neutral on the Morey subject. Lebron would still have caught flak by the morons, but more measured people can understand why. Instead Lebron took the Chinese government's position when he answered the reporter's questions.



Reaper said:


> This is what LeBron said in full.
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly measured and reasonable statement. All he's saying is to be kind and to think that saying stuff has consequences. Quotemining mongs have blown this way out of proportion.


You have to understand the context. Lebron is repeating the CCP's official talking point of blaming Morey.


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> He spoke against Trump online. Lebron could have choose to stay neutral on the Morey subject. Lebron would still have caught flak by the morons, but more measured people can understand why. Instead Lebron took the Chinese government's position when he answered the reporter's questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand the context. Lebron is repeating the CCP's official talking point of blaming Morey.


And you're spinning this into assuming that that is not his own opinion. I call bullshit. Like people aren't capable of forming their own opinion on things and speaking out. 

Hysterical.


----------



## FriedTofu

Reaper said:


> And you're spinning this into assuming that that is not his own opinion. I call bullshit. Like people aren't capable of forming their own opinion on things and speaking out.
> 
> Hysterical.


It could very well be. Lebron could really blame Morey for costing him money. Sure. But if you go that route, then why are neoliberals hypocrites then for turning on Lebron when they finally see Lebron value money over values?

Are you sure you aren't using the Lebron situation to bash neoliberals just to virtue signal?


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> It could very well be.


There's nothing left to say after that. The rest is nonsense hypotheticals and a complete waste of anyone's brain cells to read.


----------



## FriedTofu

Reaper said:


> There's nothing left to say after that. The rest is nonsense hypotheticals and a complete waste of anyone's brain cells to read.


There is still the point of why you are calling others hypocrites for something you did as well. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> There is still the point of why you are calling others hypocrites for something you did as well. :shrug


This was never about anything I said so nothing you say has any actual value.


----------



## Reaper

Pointing out that a man is being called a shill by the same people who were worshipping the ground he walked on when he agreed with them is them being hypocritical. 

I always held that my trump support was conditional to him meeting the standards that were set which he never did. It's not the same thing. So drawing the comparison here is literally nothing more than a silly attempt at drawing a parallel where none actually exists. 

I know that you're generally capable, but you have said some very vicious things about me in the past as well (after I was banned) so with you and me it's never about anything I actually say. 

You make it personal every single time and that's why I had you on mental block for several months. If you were even remotely about having a meaningful, honest discussion with me, you would have it and not try to twist things to be something they're not as pretty much everyone except Deep and CP have been able to have good conversations with me over the last year or more. No idea why the three of you in particular have acted like Nice Guys (TM) over the whole ideological shift thing. 

It's personal Tofu. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's up to you, but you're not fooling me. Now go off and be annoying elsewhere because this is the last time I address you on this site in particular. You're not worth my time especially because you're actually not strong enough to thrash things out and resort to intellectual dishonesty to waste my time.


----------



## FriedTofu

Reaper said:


> Pointing out that a man is being called a shill by the same people who were worshipping the ground he walked on when he agreed with them is them being hypocritical.
> 
> I always held that my trump support was conditional to him meeting the standards that were set which he never did. It's not the same thing. So drawing the comparison here is literally nothing more than a silly attempt at drawing a parallel where none actually exists.
> 
> I know that you're generally capable, but you have said some very vicious things about me in the past as well (after I was banned) so with you and me it's never about anything I actually say.
> 
> You make it personal every single time and that's why I had you on mental block for several months. If you were even remotely about having a meaningful, honest discussion with me, you would have it and not try to twist things to be something they're not as pretty much everyone except Deep and CP have been able to have good conversations with me over the last year or more. No idea why the three of you in particular have acted like Nice Guys over the whole ideological shift thing.
> 
> It's personal Tofu. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's up to you, but you're not fooling me. Now go off and be annoying elsewhere because this is the last time I address you on this site in particular. You're not worth my time especially because you're actually not strong enough to thrash things out and resort to intellectual dishonesty to waste my time.


Trump failed your standards so it is ok for you to turn on Trump.

Lebrom failed some neoliberals' standards, but they are hypocrites to turn on Lebron.

Huh? I was simply asking why you could change positions on someone while others that you do not agree with cannot without being labeled. It's ok to admit falling into the trap of virtue signalling.


----------



## Reaper

Neoliberals: There are consequences to speech. People should face the consequences of their actions. 
Lebron: There are consequences to speech. People should think before speaking. 

Neoliberals: OMG Lebron said there are consequences to speech. He's suppressing people in HK and their right to free speech. 

Can't even call them hypocrites even though that's what they actually are based on their own actual principles that they claim they follow. 

meanwhile: 

Me: "I will only support trump conditionally based on such and such and such"
Me: Trump failed to live up to these therefore I think Trump is an idiot. Though I still do support the fact that he hasn't started any new wars. 

People: OMG you're a hypocrite. 

Not even _remotely _the same thing. But thanks for playing. Now move along.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

A couple of thoughts about the debate tonight:

LOL at CNN trying to save Warren everytime Tulsi tried to come with the flamethrower. So obvious, that commercial break was worse than any of WWE's.

Second, Bernie won the night. AOC endorsement over Warren was obvious for people with a brain, but the Warren supporters are mad, and the media will now turn on AOC, watch.


Today was a good day. Could have been great, with a Tulsi knockout of Warren, but good none the less.


----------



## Reaper

TheLooseCanon said:


> Today was a good day. Could have been great, with a Tulsi knockout of Warren, but good none the less.


A lot of people predicted that after Tulsi buried Kamala (whose poll ratings plummeted after) she was gonna go after Warren next. I'm gonna have to get the details tomorrow. 

Tulsi checks all the right boxes, but since she's not big corporate money (Warren is now even though she may not have been in the past), she's not the right Democratic candidate ... for obvious reasons.


----------



## deepelemblues

LeBron, Kerr and the others who can't tear themselves off the teat of Red Chinese Mammon getting assblasted by everyone as they deserve

America ain't done yet


----------



## Miss Sally

Colin gets millions of dollars to talk about America, LeBron gets millions of dollars to not talk about China.

Goes to show you money talks and celeb activism is all a farce.


----------



## Irish Jet

More disgusting antisemitism from Ilhan Omar as she endorses the sole Jewish candidate in the race.

She can't keep getting away with it!


----------



## deepelemblues

Irish Jet said:


> More disgusting antisemitism from Ilhan Omar as she endorses the sole Jewish candidate in the race.
> 
> She can't keep getting away with it!


This endorsement certainly neuralizes her repeated expressions of classic anti semitic conspiracy theories. She never said those things, never happened. The endorsement neuralizer flashed and she is absolved 

Maybe Jeremy Corbyn can borrow it from her 

Nice to see the anti semites outing themselves


----------



## Irish Jet

deepelemblues said:


> This endorsement certainly neuralizes her repeated expressions of classic anti semitic conspiracy theories. She never said those things, never happened. The endorsement neuralizer flashed and she is absolved
> 
> Maybe Jeremy Corbyn can borrow it from her
> 
> Nice to see the anti semites outing themselves


Cool post. Totally agree and send her back etc.


----------



## Miss Sally

Irish Jet said:


> More disgusting antisemitism from Ilhan Omar as she endorses the sole Jewish candidate in the race.
> 
> She can't keep getting away with it!


:eyeroll2

David Duke has praised Linda Sarsour many times, he must now be cured of racism. Next you'll be telling us how Justin Trudeau once hugged a black person so therefore his blackface adventures don't count. :laugh:

The headlines from the Washington post etc have been hilarious regarding Syria. So now they're saying Trump should have kept the troops there and we are abandoning our "friends".

It's a smart move, be pro War because Trump wants to pull troops out. If Trump was anti-coal, they'd be pro-coal. Can't we get some serious Politicians and media sources?


----------



## deepelemblues

Irish Jet said:


> Cool post. Totally agree and send her back etc.


She has every right to be in this country despite her being an anti semite

I'm sorry you put yourself in the position of blithely dismissing blatant anti semitism as nothing, but that was entirely your decision and doesnt justify putting words in my mouth


----------



## skypod

From what I gather the debate was again horribly produced. The fact that even a single second was spent on something as embarrassing as Trump being thrown off Twitter when people are out there using food stamps is really something. 

Why can't debates be on C-Span or PBS or something with a qualified moderator? Commercials are the death to debates and political discourse.

Heard that Yang done well I guess.


----------



## Miss Sally

skypod said:


> From what I gather the debate was again horribly produced. The fact that even a single second was spent on something as embarrassing as Trump being thrown off Twitter when people are out there using food stamps is really something.
> 
> *Why can't debates be on C-Span or PBS or something with a qualified moderator?* Commercials are the death to debates and political discourse.
> 
> Heard that Yang done well I guess.


Because these candidates belong more on something like !E. This entire political display has been a complete joke and not worth any serious thought.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184091999189651456
I mean, it's obvious what they're doing. Wanna present the people of HK in as much of a sympethetic, victimized light as possible. 

I have nothing against them fighting for their independence. But the media narrative in the States is not that much different from the State Propaganda of China. Controlling thought through narrative formation.


----------



## virus21

As much as I don't like Vice, this article caught my attention


> Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has unveiled updated privacy legislation he says will finally bring accountability to corporations that play fast and loose with your private data.
> 
> Dubbed the Mind Your Own Business Act, the bill promises consumers the ability to opt out of data collection and sale with a single click. It also demands that corporations be transparent as to how consumer data is collected, used, and who it’s sold to, while imposing harsh fines and prison sentences upon corporations and executives that misuse consumer data and lie about it.
> 
> “I spent the past year listening to experts and strengthening the protections in my bill,” Wyden said in a statement provided to Motherboard, referring to an earlier draft of his privacy proposal unveiled late last year.
> 
> “It is based on three basic ideas: Consumers must be able to control their own private information, companies must provide vastly more transparency about how they use and share our data; and corporate executives need to be held personally responsible when they lie about protecting our personal information,” Wyden added.
> 
> If you hadn’t noticed, United States internet privacy oversight is akin to the wild west. Outside of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998, there’s few real rules governing how corporations treat your private data, and even less accountability for corporations that repeatedly treat consumer privacy and security as a distant afterthought.
> 
> The result hasn’t been pretty. Wireless carriers have been caught selling your private location data to any nitwit with a nickel, companies routinely leave private consumer data accessible to the open internet, and an endless series of major hack attacks result in consumer data being exposed to criminals. The government’s response has been maligned as feckless and pathetic.
> 
> Wyden’s bill authorizes the FTC to impose fines of up to 4 percent of annual revenues on companies that fail to protect consumer data. The bill also proposes 10-20 year prison sentences for senior executives who knowingly lie to the FTC. Companies whose executives are convicted will pay a tax based on the salary they paid to the officials who lied, Wyden’s office told Motherboard.
> 
> “Mark Zuckerberg won’t take Americans’ privacy seriously unless he feels personal consequences,” Wyden said. “A slap on the wrist from the FTC won’t do the job, so under my bill he’d face jail time for lying to the government.”
> 
> The Mind Your Own Business Act also mandates the creation of a national Do Not Track system that gives consumers the ability to quickly and easily opt out of the collection and sale of their private data without having to dig through confusing corporate websites.
> 
> The bill also restricts companies looking to make privacy a luxury option. AT&T, for example, spent several years charging its broadband users an additional $500 more a year just to stop receiving targeted ads, a move AT&T somehow insisted was a "discount." Wyden’s bill would limit such fees to the amount of money the company would actually be giving up by not being able to sell a user’s data, his office said.
> 
> Wyden’s proposal would also require that corporations give consumers an easy way to review all of the data a company has about them and correct inaccuracies. Giants like Facebook would also be required to analyze any algorithms that process consumer data—to more closely examine their impact on accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security.
> 
> Wyden’s proposal comes as a coalition of industries work hand in hand to scuttle meaningful privacy reform. Given well-crafted rules could inform and empower consumers, companies fear losing billions of dollars generated from monetizing your daily behavior.
> 
> As a result, efforts to pass meaningful rules generally wind up in the scrap bin courtesy of our well-lobbied Congress. For example, a 2016 FCC attempt to impose fairly modest broadband privacy rules was dismantled in 2017 courtesy of a Senate intimately familiar with campaign contributions from the health care, telecom, technology, insurance, and marketing industries.
> 
> While companies like Facebook and AT&T insist they support privacy legislation, groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have argued their real goal is legislation written by their own lawyers so filled with loopholes as to be largely useless. Such show pony legislation would serve one real purpose: to invalidate or “preempt” tougher state-level protections.
> 
> As such, industry isn’t likely to enjoy Wyden’s bill, which not only doesn’t preempt state privacy law, it advocates the state by state creation of a “protection and advocacy” organization that can file additional civil suits against companies that violate privacy regulations.
> 
> Cumulatively, the goal is to finally create something vaguely resembling accountability for the laundry-list of American industries that have spent the better part of the last decade not only monetizing your every waking breath, but routinely failing to ensure that data remains secure.
> TAGGED:SURVEILLANCEFACEBOOKGDPRWYDEN


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xjwjz/sen-ron-wyden-introduces-bill-that-would-send-ceos-to-jail-for-violating-consumer-privacy


----------



## Irish Jet

Miss Sally said:


> :eyeroll2
> 
> David Duke has praised Linda Sarsour many times, he must now be cured of racism. Next you'll be telling us how Justin Trudeau once hugged a black person so therefore his blackface adventures don't count. :laugh:
> 
> The headlines from the Washington post etc have been hilarious regarding Syria. So now they're saying Trump should have kept the troops there and we are abandoning our "friends".
> 
> It's a smart move, be pro War because Trump wants to pull troops out. If Trump was anti-coal, they'd be pro-coal. Can't we get some serious Politicians and media sources?


Comparing criticism of an apartheid state to Klan membership and blackface. Banter.

The American/British media has been a shitshow of dishonesty regarding Middle Eastern wars long before Trump came along. The criticism of Trump or no more or less significant than their gushing praise for him when he bombed Assad's troops. 

As for the Kurds it was a shitty move to abandon them. It isn't "pro-War" to point that out either as the American presence was a deterrence to the one existential threat the Kurdish groups face. People who are anti-war are generally just anti-war regardless of groups involved. Trump's decision has escalated the conflict by any measure. 

A bad move executed poorly which is basically his entire presidency.


----------



## BruiserKC

Irish Jet said:


> Comparing criticism of an apartheid state to Klan membership and blackface. Banter.
> 
> The American/British media has been a shitshow of dishonesty regarding Middle Eastern wars long before Trump came along. The criticism of Trump or no more or less significant than their gushing praise for him when he bombed Assad's troops.
> 
> As for the Kurds it was a shitty move to abandon them. It isn't "pro-War" to point that out either as the American presence was a deterrence to the one existential threat the Kurdish groups face. People who are anti-war are generally just anti-war regardless of groups involved. Trump's decision has escalated the conflict by any measure.
> 
> A bad move executed poorly which is basically his entire presidency.


The ceasefire is not something I am going to applaud because if he didn’t do the troop maneuvers to start with this would not be needed. And in the eyes of the Turks they are giving the Kurds 5 days to pack up and leave. Meanwhile ISIS folks are getting sprung from prison and they will start up activities again. 

Peace through strength is a better thing than peace at any price. We could end up going back, and it will be harder next time as we might not have allies to trust us.


----------



## ShiningStar

skypod said:


> From what I gather the debate was again horribly produced. The fact that even a single second was spent on something as embarrassing as Trump being thrown off Twitter when people are out there using food stamps is really something.



I agree that a Presidential candidate asking for Trump to be thrown off twitter is pretty embarassing and makes them(Kamala Harris) look like a joke who should not be taken serious anymore. That said it's also rather funny some of the same people online dunking on Kamala are Conservatives who also want Govt to intervene with how Private Social Media Companies run,and white Liberal Warren stan's who think it's brilliant when she complains about Facebook.


----------



## Reaper

Almost everything in this country is built upon a pack of lies...


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184091999189651456
> I mean, it's obvious what they're doing. Wanna present the people of HK in as much of a sympethetic, victimized light as possible.
> 
> I have nothing against them fighting for their independence. But the media narrative in the States is not that much different from the State Propaganda of China. Controlling thought through narrative formation.


They censor stuff all the time and straight up lie. The American MSM is almost as bad as China's, if not worse in some areas. As the American MSM at times purposely starts up trouble with lies and word manipulation. Of course they'll make sure nobody sees any display of racism etc from people at James from the protesters because there's no profit in showing it.



Irish Jet said:


> Comparing criticism of an apartheid state to Klan membership and blackface. Banter.
> 
> The American/British media has been a shitshow of dishonesty regarding Middle Eastern wars long before Trump came along. The criticism of Trump or no more or less significant than their gushing praise for him when he bombed Assad's troops.
> 
> As for the Kurds it was a shitty move to abandon them. It isn't "pro-War" to point that out either as the American presence was a deterrence to the one existential threat the Kurdish groups face. People who are anti-war are generally just anti-war regardless of groups involved. Trump's decision has escalated the conflict by any measure.
> 
> A bad move executed poorly which is basically his entire presidency.


Her critique is little more than thinly veiled anti-semitism under the guise of "concern". This is not to say there isn't concerns about Israel, there's a lot. Context matters. :shrug

We don't belong in Syria, or the Mid East and at this rate we'll be at war there forever, even if some "Peace loving Democrat" gets elected. It's sad.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> We don't belong in Syria, or the Mid East and at this rate we'll be at war there forever, even if some "Peace loving Democrat" gets elected. It's sad.


Only one man can save the Middle East now


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Clinton tried to smear Tulsi with that Russia shit and Tulsi just went the fuck in on Twitter.:allen


----------



## Irish Jet

Glorious.

The Clinton Mafia need to fuck off already. Much as I dislike some of Tulsi's grifting I'm delighted she didn't hold back and went straight for the throat. This could be a huge boost to her too as Hillary is so hated by so many. This is actually an opportunity for her campaign if she digs in, especially now she's genuinely defending herself. 

Bill is actually a rapist and she's about as progressive as Margaret Thatcher. She blamed Bernie, Stein, Russia, socialism, migrants, Susan Sarandon etc. Everyone but her fucking self. Egotistical evil bitch who's lashing out because she didn't get the role she was due. Put her in the sea.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185289626409406464

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185289629148291078
:sodone

Watch Bernie sit on the sidelines for this feud just like he sat on the sidelines while the DNC screwed her out of the debates. What an absolute fucking cuck and spineless weasel. This is the nasty, vile woman that he actively campaigned for in 2016. Hillary Clinton, Queen of the Deep State. Disgraceful.

As I thought, this is going down and Bernie is tweeting about what a racist, homophobic, xenophobe Trump is. :lol Worse than useless. The same level of sophistication as a California liberal arts college freshman.


----------



## virus21

> Hearthstone pro Chung ‘Blitzchung’ Ng Wai was been punished by Blizzard Entertainment after an interview in which he expressed support for the ongoing protests in Hong Kong.
> 
> Blitzchung, who is from Hong Kong, wore a mask and stated: “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” while the casters (who were also fired from the broadcast) ducked behind their desk.
> 
> Timestamp at 35:00 for mobile viewers:
> 
> 
> Who sent the letter and what does it say?
> The letter was signed by both Democrats and Republicans, including Alexandria "AOC" Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL).
> 
> In it, they criticize Blizzard for banning BlitzChung and taking his prize money after his demonstration on stream.
> 
> "This decision is particularly concerning in light of the Chinese government's growing appetite for pressuring American businesses to help stifle free speech," the letter reads.
> 
> RON WYDEN
> "Activision Blizzard benefits from China's growing market for esports, along with an investment from Tencent, one of China's largest technology firms," it continues. "As you and your company are no doubt aware, the Chinese government uses the size and strength of its economy to suppress opinions with which it disagrees."
> 
> The letter brings up Blizzard's claimed commitment to "one's right to express individual thoughts and opinions," and how a number of the company's own employees felt the punishment to BlitzChung went against that.
> 
> Read More: Hong Kong reveal Overwatch World Cup future amid Blizzard controversies
> "Your disappointing decision could have a chilling effect on gamers who seek to use their platform to promote human rights and basic freedoms," the letter stated. "Many gamers around the world have taken notice of your company's actions, understandably calling for boycotts of Activision Blizzard gaming sites.
> 
> 
> Rod Breslau
> ✔
> @Slasher
> · 6h
> Replying to @Slasher and 3 others
> "Activision Blizzard benefits from China's growing market for esports with an investment from Tencent...Gamers around the world have taken notice of your company's actions, understandably calling for boycotting of Activision Blizzard gaming sites"
> 
> they're going in
> 
> 
> Rod Breslau
> ✔
> @Slasher
> note that it looks as if the letter was either written prior to Activision Blizzard reducing the punishment for blitzchung, or everyone missed it and was sent as is
> 
> 1,555
> 2:47 PM - Oct 18, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 94 people are talking about this
> Esports insider Rod 'Slasher' Breslau brought the letter to the attention of the internet when he tweeted a copy on October 18, but noted that it seemed to be written before Blizzard announced a reduced punishment for the Hearthstone pro.
> 
> Read More: Blizzard fans call for boycott after publisher bans player for Hong Kong protest
> It's the first time we've seen a Congressional letter concerning esports and the fact it's bipartisan means neither party seems particularly happy with Blizzard's actions.
> 
> The publisher has yet to respond to the letter at the time of writing. Dexerto has contacted Activision Blizzard for a response and will update the story when/if we hear back.


https://www.dexerto.com/hearthstone/congress-sends-letter-condemning-blizzard-blitzchung-scandal-1157946


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185346072832565249
Clinton shown up by this person. No one is more cuntish than Clinton tbh. She's the ultimate AmeriKKKan Cunt. Probably the biggest one in the entire country.


----------



## Stormbringer

Somebody on another board said Tulsi could get a boost from all this since her number can't really go lower. 


Said that if Bernie gets the nod, he could take her on as his VP and she could just wait out his clock.


----------



## CHAMPIONSHIPS

Tulsi Gabbard doesn't even support Medicare 4 All. She trades CDs with Narendra "Genocidal Ghandi" Modi. She voted with Republicans to ban Syrian refugees in 2015. She ain't progressive and Bernie Sanders doesn't owe her shit, let alone back up. They're not allies and they're not in the same wing of the party

Tulsi Gabbard claims to be anti-war but a "Hawk in the War on Terror". Yeah I guess it's easy to be anti-war if you don't count America's current and longest wars LMAO. "I'm anti-war. Oh yeah the Korean War and the 1983 Invasion of Grenada I'm totally opposed to those"

She's got 0 - 1% support in most polls. She's about to lose her congressional seat too. She's already on Tucker Carlson every night she might as well go ahead and be a Republican

Fuck Tulsi Gabbard. She's got no chance of being president in 2020 so this is just a pointless distraction for a candidate who no one actually cares about. She wouldn't even be a good VP because unless Bernie has a black, especially black woman VP, he's toast in a general. Besides the whole ya know, support for genocide shit. Thanks Hillary, you fucking ghoul, for breathing new life into this moron


Tulsi stans. She's literally not going to be around after New Hampshire. Stop wasting y'alls time


----------



## CamillePunk

Tulsi resigned from the DNC in 2016 to support Bernie and this is how his supporters, in lockstep with their spineless leader, respond when she is smeared as a traitor. :lol Sad. Shows you what their character is like. Would be a mistake to let them anywhere near the ring of power.


----------



## deepelemblues

Tulsi is a bit of a simpleton in the broad strokes of her positions but shes pretty and shes serving the useful purpose of exposing the rottenness of the democratic party edifice :draper2

I'm certainly not a fan of her being in a position of actual power but shes doing what candidates of her stature are supposed to do which is ferret out which leading candidates are stinkburgers


----------



## CHAMPIONSHIPS

deepelemblues said:


> Tulsi is a bit of a simpleton in the broad strokes of her positions but shes pretty and shes serving the useful purpose of exposing the rottenness of the democratic party edifice :draper2
> 
> I'm certainly not a fan of her being in a position of actual power but shes doing what candidates of her stature are supposed to do which is ferret out which leading candidates are stinkburgers


Is she though? I used to want Tulsi on the debate stage for the same reason but all she's done recently is shield Biden. And now she's backing off of Medicare 4 All. I think corporate money is floating around her somewhere. Expect her to be in Biden's cabinet and failing that, a Fox News Analyst cuz she fucking looooooves Fox News 



CamillePunk said:


> Tulsi resigned from the DNC in 2016 to support Bernie and this is how his supporters, in lockstep with their spineless leader, respond when she is smeared as a traitor. :lol Sad. Shows you what their character is like. Would be a mistake to let them anywhere near the ring of power.


LMAO you best not go down this path after your obese father figure just endorsed the ethnic cleansing of a military ally. Bernie could throw Tulsi off a cliff and it wouldn't be as bad as throwing white phosphorus on the guys who literally beat ISIS

Anyway so what. If someone endorses me in 2016 and endorses Genocide in 2020, they can obviously fuck off lol


----------



## skypod

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185375824154890240
God has a sense of humour.


----------



## virus21

> Dozens of spectators at a US basketball game have held signs and donned T-shirts and masks in support of protests in Hong Kong.
> 
> Demonstrators gathered during a match in New York between the Brooklyn Nets and the Toronto Raptors.
> 
> The move was organised by film producer Andrew Duncan, who bought 300 tickets for the activists.
> 
> It comes amid an ongoing row between China and the NBA over the protests that have rocked Hong Kong since March.
> 
> Images from the pre-season game on Friday show demonstrators wearing T-shirts emblazoned with "Stand With Hong Kong" and "Free Tibet".
> 
> Two other people were also pictured wearing Winnie-the-Pooh costumes. The cartoon bear is used as a symbol to mock Chinese President Xi Jinping and is banned in China.
> 
> Footage from the protest was shared on social media.
> 
> Skip Twitter post by @lhadon
> 
> lhadon
> @lhadon
> BREAKING: Tibet activists protest alongside Hong Kong activists at Nets v Raptors game in NYC. Signs read: "Tsai & LeBron: Morey was right - NBA: Stand for freedom” & “Don’t let China buy our silence, people are dying to be free”. #FreeTibet #StandWithHongKong @dmorey
> 
> Embedded video
> 4,578
> 8:54 PM - Oct 18, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 2,358 people are talking about this
> Report
> End of Twitter post by @lhadon
> Among the group was Hong Kong activist Nathan Law, the former chairman of Demosisto, a pro-democracy party he co-founded with fellow campaigner Joshua Wong.
> 
> "We want to use our performance art to show our support for Hong Kong and the NBA," another spectator, Chen Pokong, 55, told the New York Post. "[China wants] to take away freedom of speech and now spread dictatorship to America."
> 
> Local media report that some of demonstrators were ejected from the game for chanting.
> 
> Similar demonstrations have already been held at other games between American and Chinese teams. Earlier this month, during a match between the Philadelphia 76ers and the Guangzhou Loong-Lions, two people were asked to leave for holding signs in support of Hong Kong protests.
> 
> NBA facing 'substantial' losses over China dispute
> How one tweet derailed the NBA's China game plan
> At another game between the Loong-Lions and the Washington Wizards, local media report that spectators had their pro-Hong Kong signs confiscated.
> 
> But Friday's protest was the first to be held during a match between two American NBA teams.
> 
> The spat between the league and China's government began earlier this month after Houston Rockets manager Daryl Morey tweeted support for protests in Hong Kong.
> 
> As a result, several Chinese firms suspended sponsorship and telecast deals with the NBA - a huge financial blow to the league, which has millions of followers in China.
> 
> Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
> Image caption
> In Hong Kong this week, some protesters burned jerseys of basketball star LeBron James in response to his comments about the demonstrations
> The Rockets and the NBA quickly distanced themselves from Mr Morey's tweet, while basketball superstar LeBron James suggested the Rockets' manager "wasn't educated on the situation" in Hong Kong.
> 
> Brooklyn Nets owner Joe Tsai - who is also the vice-chairman of Chinese ecommerce giant Alibaba - has also criticised Mr Morey for his "damaging" tweet, saying he misjudged how strongly many Chinese people felt about Hong Kong.
> 
> "Supporting a separatist movement in a Chinese territory is one of those third-rail issues, not only for the Chinese government, but also for all citizens in China," Mr Tsai added.
> 
> Mr Morey has since backtracked on his tweet. but US lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle have accused the NBA of bowing to Beijing.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50107335

And in non-China news


> SANTIAGO (Reuters) - Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera declared a state of emergency in the capital Santiago early on Saturday, as the city of 6 million descended into chaos amid riots that left a downtown building engulfed in flames and its metro system shuttered.
> 
> A subway ticket office is seen on fire during a protest against the increase in the subway ticket prices in Santiago, Chile, October 19, 2019 REUTERS/Ramon Monroy
> Black-hooded protesters enraged by recent fare hikes on public transportation lit fires at several metro stations, looted shops, burned a public bus and swung metal pipes at train station turnstiles during Friday’s afternoon commute, according to witnesses, social media and television footage.
> 
> Pinera spoke to the nation in the early hours of Saturday, declaring an emergency lockdown as sirens filled the night air downtown, and police and firefighters rushed to contain the damage.
> 
> The center-right Pinera said he would invoke a special state security law to prosecute the “criminals” responsible for the city-wide damage, while at the same time saying he sympathized with those impacted by the rate hikes.
> 
> “In the coming days, our government will call for a dialogue ... to alleviate the suffering of those affected by the increase in fares,” Pinera said in the broadcast address.
> 
> Chile is one of Latin America’s wealthiest nations, but also, among its most unequal. Frustrations over the high cost of living in Santiago have become a political flashpoint, prompting calls for reforms on everything from the country’s tax and labor codes to its pension system.
> 
> Enel Chile, a subsidiary of Italian utility Enel, said vandals had set fire to the company’s high-rise corporate headquarters downtown. Local television footage showed flames climbing up the side of the building as fire crews struggled to break through growing crowds of protesters.
> 
> The company said in a statement posted on Twitter that workers had been evacuated safely from the site.
> 
> High school and university students began the protests after the government hiked fares on Oct. 6 to as much as $1.17 for a peak metro ride, blaming higher energy costs and a weaker peso.
> 
> The protests turned increasingly violent on Friday afternoon, however, and by early evening, officials had closed down all of the city’s 136 metro stations, which connect more than 87 miles of track.
> 
> The metro system will remain closed through the weekend, with officials saying “serious destruction” made it impossible to operate trains safely.
> 
> Demonstrators clanging pots and honking horns clashed with police armed with batons and tear gas all across the normally subdued city late into Friday evening.
> 
> Metro management said there had been more than 200 incidents on Santiago’s subway system in the previous 11 days, mostly involving school children and older students jumping barriers and forcing gates.
> 
> Earlier on Friday, after a meeting with the metro chief and interior minister, Transport Minister Gloria Hutt told reporters the fare hike would not be reversed. She said the government subsidizes almost half the operating costs of the metro, one of Latin America’s most modern.
> 
> “This is not a discussion that should have risen to the level of violence that we’ve seen,” she said.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chile-protests-metro/chile-shuts-down-capital-city-metro-as-violent-protests-spread-idUSKBN1WX2DV?utm_source=reddit.com


----------



## Stinger Fan

Irish Jet said:


> More disgusting antisemitism from Ilhan Omar as she endorses the sole Jewish candidate in the race.
> 
> She can't keep getting away with it!


That's your argument to prove she's not an anti-semite? This clown actually claimed the Jews "hypnotised" people, which is an old anti-semitic trope about the "evil Jews" and their mystic powers. They have an actual slur for it, which I will not use for obvious reasons. Her and the other Clown, Tliab had their trip planned by an anti-semitic organization that supports suicide bombers. In fact, they celebrated a woman who killed *13 Israeli children*. Oh, and lets not forget Omar's support for Linda Sarsour, the other anti-semite who openly embraced a *convicted terrorist* who killed Jews. Could you imagine if Republicans did that? She and other Democrats largely get away with this kind of crap .

But, no, you're completely right. She's not a horrible anti-semite because she "endorsed" a Jewish candidate. No, it has nothing to do with trying to win over his base at all right? Fact is, she's an anti-semitic piece of shit but you do you I guess


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185371843957526528

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185747939257397248
Trump has said more in defense of Tulsi than Bernie has. :lol Sad!


----------



## BruiserKC

Hillary Clinton is like a bad case of herpes. Every so often it pops up to remind us it’s still there. She just can’t accept the fact she has done enough damage to the Republic and just needs to go away for good.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185371843957526528
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185747939257397248
> Trump has said more in defense of Tulsi than Bernie has. :lol Sad!


Because Bernie is a bitch. He has no backbone, by the time 2020 comes he'll have flip flopped on nearly everything he's said. 

Hillary is plotting to make another run if the DNC can fuck over enough people. :laugh:


----------



## skypod

Why should Bernie defend someone that in a years time will be on Fox every week talking about the crazy blue haired non-binary left is coming to get all of us and defeat free speech. Tulsi is not a worthy cause at this point. She was was always going to shift more to the right on healthcare, education etc.


----------



## Deathstroke

The more the left denigrates Tulsi, the more I want to vote for her.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


>


The fuck is that?


----------



## Irish Jet

Stinger Fan said:


> That's your argument to prove she's not an anti-semite? This clown actually claimed the Jews "hypnotised" people, which is an old anti-semitic trope about the "evil Jews" and their mystic powers. They have an actual slur for it, which I will not use for obvious reasons. Her and the other Clown, Tliab had their trip planned by an anti-semitic organization that supports suicide bombers. In fact, they celebrated a woman who killed *13 Israeli children*. Oh, and lets not forget Omar's support for Linda Sarsour, the other anti-semite who openly embraced a *convicted terrorist* who killed Jews. Could you imagine if Republicans did that? She and other Democrats largely get away with this kind of crap .
> 
> But, no, you're completely right. She's not a horrible anti-semite because she "endorsed" a Jewish candidate. No, it has nothing to do with trying to win over his base at all right? Fact is, she's an anti-semitic piece of shit but you do you I guess


Hey buddy.


----------



## CamillePunk

skypod said:


> Why should Bernie defend someone that in a years time will be on Fox every week talking about the crazy blue haired non-binary left is coming to get all of us and defeat free speech. Tulsi is not a worthy cause at this point. She was was always going to shift more to the right on healthcare, education etc.


It's so entirely fitting that Bernie supporters, like their dear leader, are complete ingrates. :lol


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> *crazy blue haired*


Odds are that if you meet a blue haired chick and a chick without blue hair, the blue haired one is gonna be crazy. Blue haired chicks are rarely allies and much more likely to switch to overt racism if you tell them to listen to minority view points from experience. They're the ones who treat minorities like pets and demand that we ally behind them instead of listening. SJW's are the ones that are literally begging mega-corporations to fuck them up the ass and then defend the same mega corporations as they rape their own ideals ... because to them their politics are largely self-serving narcissism. 

*The modern SJW is as much a right wing neoliberal economic fascist as any republitard. 
*
I like what Tulsi stands for on war. She's absolutely fucking spot on about Hitlery the Mother of all War-mongering racist Cunts in the democratic party. The majority of the democratic party is not left and they are doing everything they can to resist the left as much as is possible. 

Even Bernie is barely "left" at this point. Center left / social welfare statist is where he's at. America has no "left" representation in politics. 

None. 

I don't care about Tulsi's other views. Her exposing the CUNT that is Clinton and the rest of the DNC to people is far more important than her running for president.


----------



## skypod

Reaper said:


> Odds are that if you meet a blue haired chick and a chick without blue hair, the blue haired one is gonna be crazy. Blue haired chicks are rarely allies and much more likely to switch to overt racism if you tell them to listen to minority view points from experience. They're the ones who treat minorities like pets and demand that we ally behind them instead of listening. SJW's are the ones that are literally begging mega-corporations to fuck them up the ass and then defend the same mega corporations as they rape their own ideals ... because to them their politics are largely self-serving narcissism.
> 
> *The modern SJW is as much a right wing neoliberal economic fascist as any republitard.
> *
> I like what Tulsi stands for on war. She's absolutely fucking spot on about Hitlery the Mother of all War-mongering racist Cunts in the democratic party. The majority of the democratic party is not left and they are doing everything they can to resist the left as much as is possible.
> 
> Even Bernie is barely "left" at this point. Center left / social welfare statist is where he's at. America has no "left" representation in politics.
> 
> None.
> 
> I don't care about Tulsi's other views. Her exposing the CUNT that is Clinton and the rest of the DNC to people is far more important than her running for president.



I didn't say crazy blue haired in support. Fuck SJWs. They'll eat themselves soon enough.

My issue is with her running to the Dave Rubinites who are only in the game to stir shit and placate to a right leaning base who care more about gender neurtral bathrooms than the vast income equality we have in the world today. They aren't listening to her because she's anti-war. They're listening to her because she's criticizing democratic nominees. She's either being foolish in how shes being used by the right or doesn't care.


----------



## MrMister

Miss Sally said:


> Because Bernie is a bitch. He has no backbone, by the time 2020 comes he'll have flip flopped on nearly everything he's said.
> 
> Hillary is plotting to make another run if the DNC can fuck over enough people. :laugh:


Is that an Onion article because it reads like one?

Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great...both women!

Hercules and Zeus, though fictional...also women!

Julius Caesar was a dude though unfortunately.


Apparently Hillary is running from Tulsi. Hillary is now not attending some event that Tulsi is going to be at. She is such a fucking coward psychopath.


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> I didn't say crazy blue haired in support. Fuck SJWs. They'll eat themselves soon enough.


I seriously doubt it .. I've noticed a trend that SJW's tend to be middle upper or upper class. They have daddy's money, no real adult responsibilities, never faced any real racism or even sexism (since their pet projects are retarded issues like manspreading, being talked to on the streets etc), nor had to *really* work for their money as within the SJW circles nepotism is fucking huge. They are literally the pretend "left" version of rich republican kids who get most things in life handed to them and therefore they're already part of the elitest power structure and essentially doing their part in maintaining it. Pretty intentionally too. 

They've also taken some legit theories and ideas around race and turned them on their head to suit their own person goals. Fuck SJW's seriously. I despise them. 



> *My issue is with her running to the Dave Rubinites *who are only in the game to stir shit and placate to a right leaning base who care more about gender neurtral bathrooms than the vast income equality we have in the world today. They aren't listening to her because she's anti-war. They're listening to her because she's criticizing democratic nominees. She's either being foolish in how shes being used by the right or doesn't care.


Where else will people like Tulsi go when the fascist democrat media refuses to provide platforms to people who are anti-war and not fucking neoliberals? 

I don't like Rubin either. But when you've got the entire democratic and Republican neoliberal/neocon machine against you, it leaves little in the way of having any real platforms.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Odds are that if you meet a blue haired chick and a chick without blue hair, the blue haired one is gonna be crazy. Blue haired chicks are rarely allies and much more likely to switch to overt racism if you tell them to listen to minority view points from experience. They're the ones who treat minorities like pets and demand that we ally behind them instead of listening. SJW's are the ones that are literally begging mega-corporations to fuck them up the ass and then defend the same mega corporations as they rape their own ideals ... because to them their politics are largely self-serving narcissism.
> 
> *The modern SJW is as much a right wing neoliberal economic fascist as any republitard.
> *
> I like what Tulsi stands for on war. She's absolutely fucking spot on about Hitlery the Mother of all War-mongering racist Cunts in the democratic party. The majority of the democratic party is not left and they are doing everything they can to resist the left as much as is possible.
> 
> Even Bernie is barely "left" at this point. Center left / social welfare statist is where he's at. America has no "left" representation in politics.
> 
> None.
> 
> I don't care about Tulsi's other views. Her exposing the CUNT that is Clinton and the rest of the DNC to people is far more important than her running for president.


You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink. No matter how many times you explain this to people, they'll never accept it. The Bernie bros will always be Bernie bros as all these people have turned into the very thing they hate.. They've become like hardcore Trump supporters. No facts, evidence or observation will change that. 

The "Allies" and we all know who they are, always end up coming off as a bunch of fascists because everything revolves around identity and their control. It's why Third wave Feminists etc have tried to make stuff that's not their issue, their issue. It's so they can have more control. All their rhetoric comes off as either power top or power bottom.. always with them in control. :laugh: 




MrMister said:


> Is that an Onion article because it reads like one?
> 
> Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great...both women!
> 
> Hercules and Zeus, though fictional...also women!
> 
> Julius Caesar was a dude though unfortunately.
> 
> 
> Apparently Hillary is running from Tulsi. Hillary is now not attending some event that Tulsi is going to be at. She is such a fucking coward psychopath.


I don't think anyone can tell what's an Onion article anymore. Salon put out an article about white people wanting to be sure white people exist in the future is racist. I really don't know what to think anymore, it's all so crazy. :frown2:


----------



## CamillePunk

Maybe if Bernie would show up for Tulsi when she gets attacked the way he fell over himself to do for AOC and Ilhan she wouldn't be looking to the right for support. :lol


----------



## Stinger Fan

Miss Sally said:


> You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink. No matter how many times you explain this to people, they'll never accept it. The Bernie bros will always be Bernie bros as all these people have turned into the very thing they hate.. They've become like hardcore Trump supporters. No facts, evidence or observation will change that.
> 
> The "Allies" and we all know who they are, always end up coming off as a bunch of fascists because everything revolves around identity and their control. It's why Third wave Feminists etc have tried to make stuff that's not their issue, their issue. It's so they can have more control. All their rhetoric comes off as either power top or power bottom.. always with them in control. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone can tell what's an Onion article anymore. Salon put out an article about white people wanting to be sure white people exist in the future is racist. I really don't know what to think anymore, it's all so crazy. :frown2:


Wasn't it Salon that put out multiple articles involving a pedophile? All these websites seem to blend together though, so maybe it wasn't them I don't know


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185988329742798848
Watch this and say Bernie owes Tulsi nothing. :lol I dare you. He's a disgrace. Marches in lockstep with the establishment on Russiagate. Refuses to criticize the DNC when they do shady stuff. Refuses to call out Biden for his corruption. Vows to support the Democrat nominee no matter who it is. He 100% will not get any significant part of his agenda implemented if he were to be elected. He's already sold out.


----------



## ShiningStar

A former Democratic nominee calls a Presidential candidate and sitting Congressperson a Foreign asset(one in her own party even) without addressing why.Even if you disagree with Tulsi on policy and find her constantly on Tucker problematic,it's sheer cowardice how many candidates are not even addressing these accusations. If hypothetically she was a Russian asset it would be the due dillegence of anyone in congress or the Intelligence commitee to get her removed from the positions she now holds. If she were truly a foreign asset her being in the National Guard and member of Foreign Affairs committee would be a far greater risk to National security then a hypothetical "3rd party run".


----------



## DesolationRow

ShiningStar said:


> A former Democratic nominee calls a Presidential candidate and sitting Congressperson a Foreign asset(one in her own party even) without addressing why.Even if you disagree with Tulsi on policy and find her constantly on Tucker problematic,it's sheer cowardice how many candidates are not even addressing these accusations. If hypothetically she was a Russian asset it would be the due dillegence of anyone in congress or the Intelligence commitee to get her removed from the positions she now holds. If she were truly a foreign asset her being in the National Guard and member of Foreign Affairs committee would be a far greater risk to National security then a hypothetical "3rd party run".


Precisely.

The leading Russiagaters--and Hillary Clinton would be correctly designated as the "godmother of Russiagating"--evidently wish to lob verbal hand grenades toward disparate individuals (serving U.S. president Donald Trump, serving member of Congress Tulsi Gabbard) in stating that these subjects are committing treason to their government by being moles for Vladimir Putin's regime while never being held accountable for the charges they are bringing to the fore. 

Pete Buttigieg's response to the query posed by CNN's Jake Tapper is embarrassing:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...px.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

"I'd rather the conversation be about policy; about what we're going to do; and how American lives are going to be different..." 

Hillary Clinton being concerned with the "hypothetical 3rd party run" as you put it is indeed humorous, and vividly displays how these concerns are strictly political in nature. 

Secretary of State Clinton's experiences with classified intelligence are hardly worthy of recommendation. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary...some-may-face-disciplinary-action-2019-10-19/



> State Department cites 38 people in Clinton email investigation
> 
> OCTOBER 19, 2019 / 5:10 PM / AP
> 
> The State Department has completed its internal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of private email and found violations by 38 people, some of whom may face disciplinary action. The investigation, launched more than three years ago, determined that those 38 people were "culpable" in 91 cases of sending classified information that ended up in Clinton's personal email, according to a letter sent to Republican Senator Chuck Grassley this week and released Friday.
> 
> The 38 are current and former State Department officials but were not identified.
> 
> Although the report identified violations, it said investigators had found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." However, it also made clear that Clinton's use of private email had increased the vulnerability of sensitive data.
> 
> Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a tweet Saturday: "For the umpteenth time the email story is put to bed w/ a clear recognition it was a pointless crusade that took away from so many other issues we should have been discussing in '16."
> 
> The investigation covered 33,000 emails that Clinton turned over for review after her use of the private email account became public. The department said it found a total of 588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified but could not assign fault in 497 cases.
> 
> For current and former officials, culpability means the violations will be noted in their files and will be considered when they apply for or renew security clearances. For current officials, there could also be disciplinary action, though it's unclear how they could potentially be reprimanded.
> 
> The department began the review in 2016 after declaring 22 emails from Clinton's private server to be "top secret." Clinton was then running for president against Donald Trump, and Mr. Trump made the server a major focus of his campaign.
> 
> Then-FBI Director James Comey held a news conference that year in which he criticized Clinton as "extremely careless" in her use of the private email server as secretary of state but said the FBI would not recommend charges.
> 
> The Justice Department's inspector general said FBI specialists did not find evidence that the server had been hacked, with one forensics agent saying he felt "fairly confident that there wasn't an intrusion."
> 
> Grassley started investigating Clinton's email server in 2017, when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Iowa Republican has been critical of Clinton's handling of classified information and urged administrative sanctions.


----------



## Reaper

bootygig is a clintonite. groomed pussy pajama boy.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Irish Jet said:


> Hey buddy.


Well, at least you provided a compelling defense of an anti-semite who supports murdering children.


----------



## Draykorinee

Well, the US have been murdering children for decades in regime change wars so let's not try to pretend she's any different than the rest.


----------



## Miss Sally

Stinger Fan said:


> Well, at least you provided a compelling defense of an anti-semite who supports murdering children.


Her skin tone and Religion make it impossible to harbor any ill will or anti-semitism, now if she were a white male.. Well that depends. If she were another pretty boy Trudeau, she would be celebrated for being an anti-semite ... I mean "critical of Israel". :x Although her followers say she just "Speaks wrong and doesn't clearly make her point, it's all misunderstandings".. I've heard this excuse before.. for someone else.. but where? :hmmm



Draykorinee said:


> Well, the US have been murdering children for decades in regime change wars so let's not try to pretend she's any different than the rest.


Well, maybe people should start treating her as such? :shrug


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186405744146554882









/ronpaulitshappening.gif


----------



## DaRealNugget

Solidarity. I never doubted you Bernie.

The amount of hate and conspiracy bullshit thrown Tulsi's way from the Clinton wing of the party this election cycle has been fucking disgusting. And while she isn't my ideal candidate, I will always respect her for doing what Warren was too cowardly to do in 2016 and go against the party line and endorse Bernie. Clearly, Hillary is still holding a grudge for Tulsi not bowing at the queen's feet.

I HATE that Donald Trump is president, he is evil and blatantly corrupt, but I am so incredibly happy Hillary fucking Clinton isn't president. There is nobody on American soil who deserved to lose more than she did. The day she fucks off away from American politics, the country will be in a better place.


----------



## CamillePunk

Glad he has at last done the right thing.  Not sure what took him so long, perhaps he was busy with his campaign, but credit where it's due.


----------



## Stephen90

In other news Justin Trudeau will most likely serve a second term as Canadian prime minister.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...-reckoning-as-polls-predict-close-result-live


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186405744146554882
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /ronpaulitshappening.gif


:crow

Well Bernie did it, didn't think he would but he did. I still don't like him flip flopping on stuff but I'll eat crow on this. I was sure he'd let Tulsi twist in the wind over "Russian Agent" nonsense.

I hope more will do that as this Russian witch hunt nonsense serves no purpose. Good on Bernie, even if I don't agree with his politics, it was a ballsy move. Sad how doing the right thing in politics is now ballsy. :laugh:


----------



## Stephen90

Stinger Fan said:


> Well, at least you provided a compelling defense of an anti-semite who supports murdering children.


I did not know Ben Shapiro was a member of WF. Welcome Ben.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stephen90 said:


> In other news Justin Trudeau will most likely serve a second term as Canadian prime minister.
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...-reckoning-as-polls-predict-close-result-live


There's no force those dreamy eyes can't overcome.

My sources say Melania's influence got him over the line.


----------



## CamillePunk

Imagined racism is horrible but actual racism, i.e wearing blackface, is totally fine. :lol As long as you're on the political "left".


----------



## yeahbaby!




----------



## MontyCora

CamillePunk said:


> Imagined racism is horrible but actual racism, i.e wearing blackface, is totally fine. :lol As long as you're on the political "left".


Trump has completely changed the game for all politics forever. One blackface scandal or one blowjob from a staffer is no longer NEARLY enough scandal to derail a career. Hypocrisy in your actions? Well, the President just said he was going to be the President to end war, and then in the next sentence threatened to bomb Iran off the map.

Nothing matters anymore. The substance is irrelevant, nothing will stick like it used to.


----------



## CamillePunk

Ah yes, it's Trump's fault. :lol Of course.


----------



## Draykorinee

Stephen90 said:


> I did not know Ben Shapiro was a member of WF. Welcome Ben.


For all of Ben's failures, I think you're doing him a disservice linking him to Stinger.

Politicon going to be great, Tomi Lahren V Kyle Kulinski lol, bit of a mismatch.


----------



## MontyCora

CamillePunk said:


> Ah yes, it's Trump's fault. :lol Of course.


Nothing's his "fault", unless your perspective is that the Liberals winning is a bad thing which I can only assume is what you think.

I'm just saying the game has pretty objectively changed. "He did brown face years ago at a party? Big deal."


----------



## Stinger Fan

Stephen90 said:


> I did not know Ben Shapiro was a member of WF. Welcome Ben.


You see, I'm hardly one to throw around terms like racist, sexist, islamophobe or whatever buzz word that leftists throw around like its candy on halloween. When I use them, its because they have actual merit behind it. I don't lower the bar and claim people who think lowering taxes makes them a racist. You can go look at my history in regards to people throwing around those terms and devaluing them just to win an argument 

Still though, no actual defense for her blatant anti-semitism . More deflection and ignoring how trash she really is


----------



## Miss Sally

Stephen90 said:


> In other news Justin Trudeau will most likely serve a second term as Canadian prime minister.
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...-reckoning-as-polls-predict-close-result-live


Who would have guessed the king of vapid virtue signaling and hypocrisy would have enough of a following to keep hold of some power? Any sensible person would have wanted this racist ass clown gone. He's the king of the "allies" though. 0



MontyCora said:


> Trump has completely changed the game for all politics forever. One blackface scandal or one blowjob from a staffer is no longer NEARLY enough scandal to derail a career. Hypocrisy in your actions? Well, the President just said he was going to be the President to end war, and then in the next sentence threatened to bomb Iran off the map.
> 
> Nothing matters anymore. The substance is irrelevant, nothing will stick like it used to.


What makes it worse it wasn't just one time he did it, but several times. The king of wokeness got exposed as a racist and more people leaped to his defense or wrote off his actions than held him accountable.



CamillePunk said:


> Imagined racism is horrible but actual racism, i.e wearing blackface, is totally fine. :lol As long as you're on the political "left".


They're exactly like the Religious Right whom they claim to be different from and hate. Nobody on their side can do any wrong, anything said is misunderstood and it's all one big "learning experience". It's even more amusing that the outrage mob who get worked up for this kind of thing are dismissing this as just a joke. I cannot take these people serious anymore. :serious:


----------



## Draykorinee

Think it's fair to say if you're on the left you're often blind to the problems of the left and if you're on the right you're often blind to the problems of the right.

There are people who are racist but accepted by the the right and people who are racist but accepted by the left.

Blackface is nearly always racist, so why do these lefties vote for this guy?

No better alternative? It's why tories will vote for Boris. Its not rocket science.


----------



## Miss Sally

Draykorinee said:


> Think it's fair to say if you're on the left you're often blind to the problems of the left and if you're on the right you're often blind to the problems of the right.
> 
> There are people who are racist but accepted by the the right and people who are racist but accepted by the left.
> 
> Blackface is nearly always racist, so why do these lefties vote for this guy?
> 
> No better alternative? It's why tories will vote for Boris. Its not rocket science.


Which is why nothing will ever change. :laugh:


----------



## skypod

I see some pretty cringey "woke" twitter stuff but I've honestly not seen anyone defend Justin Trudeau and a lot of "lefties" turned on him after the pictures came out. I do think unless his policies are specifically harming Black Canadians then it was never going to get much traction in the long run. I saw a few funny memes a month afterwards though.


----------



## MrMister

I am glad that CamillePunk was here to shame Bernie into speaking out against the Russian agent claims against Gabbard.


----------



## Draykorinee

Bernie definitely gets his talking points from WF.

Seeing everyone (outside of her bubble) turn on Clinton is quite glorious.

The blue check marks of the DNC are out in force on Bernies tweet. Russia, Russia Russia, FML.


----------



## CamillePunk

I think it's more likely he saw my many tweets on the issue, but either way I'm glad he came around. :mark:


----------



## deepelemblues

MontyCora said:


> Nothing's his "fault", unless your perspective is that the Liberals winning is a bad thing which I can only assume is what you think.
> 
> I'm just saying the game has pretty objectively changed. "He did brown face years ago at a party? Big deal."


This argument might be more weighty if it were not for the :fact that the double standard wherein left-wingers get away with saying and doing things right-wingers are destroyed for saying or doing - and sometimes, simply an accusation is sufficient, proof unnecessary, because after all they're right-wing, whatever the allegation is must be accurate and they deserve the pain anyway even if it isn't - has existed for decades while the president has dominated Western politics for only a little over 4 years


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186805438169276416
While obviously biased, he's not wrong. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

http://archive.is/qeUup



> Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’


:heston


----------



## CamillePunk




----------



## MrMister

Fucking Hillary just go away only total morons like you.


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> Fucking Hillary just go away only total morons like you.


She needs to be sent to mars.

ok MrMister... Real or fake?


----------



## FriedTofu

MrMister said:


> Fucking Hillary just go away only total morons like you.


This spat just made Tulsi remain relevant in the race. Not sure what Hilary is trying to accomplish with going public with her views on Tulsi unless she truely believes it or she wants to be the lightning rod of criticism for the anti-establishment crowd instead of Biden.

The primary is going to down to between Biden and Warren/Bernie. And Biden has been getting heat for being too establishment from all sides.


----------



## MrMister

Miss Sally said:


> She needs to be sent to mars.
> 
> ok MrMister... Real or fake?


I'd guess fake because the ICP meme, but it's believable. Also Seattle.


----------



## CamillePunk

Even centrist Democrats are distancing themselves from Clinton now. :lol She couldn't just ride off into the sunset, could she? God I hope she enters the race.


----------



## Reaper

No idea why Americans are always whining about dictators and authoritarian governments when America is literally one of the worst in the world in that regard themselves:










Virginia.


----------



## CamillePunk

Quality self-parody there. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Awesome interview with Edward Snowden on the Joe Rogan podcast! Well, it's more like Snowden talking for 3 hours straight, but it's great I assure you! :lol 

Hopefully no one here is still so misinformed as to believe Snowden to be a traitor or foreign asset of some kind.  Clearly a great, courageous, and extremely intelligent patriot who risked everything to expose how the federal government has completely trampled our constitutional rights.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> No idea why Americans are always whining about dictators and authoritarian governments when America is literally one of the worst in the world in that regard themselves:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia.


You'll be glad to know its been changed this year. 

Now you have to be 14 years old and above and you can only get a $250 fine.it is worth noting that this law has never been put in to practice though, if devil's advocating dumb rules is needed.


----------



## CamillePunk

Draykorinee said:


> You'll be glad to know its been changed this year.
> 
> Now you have to be 14 years old and above and you can only get a $250 fine.it is worth noting that this law has never been put in to practice


Literally communist China IMO


----------



## CamillePunk

The future of selling bombs that kill children is female. :nerd:


----------



## Reaper

Draykorinee said:


> You'll be glad to know its been changed this year.
> 
> Now you have to be 14 years old and above and you can only get a $250 fine.it is worth noting that this law has never been put in to practice though, if devil's advocating dumb rules is needed.


2+ million people in jail ... Most for non violent crimes. 5 times the incarceration rate compared to commuinist china. It makes you wonder if in fact state authoritarianism in both countries are a severe problem, which it indeed is. 

10s of thousands 9f people in concentration camps. Babies stolen from families and state sanctioned selling to religious "charities". 

Honesty and integrity doesn't matter as long as red scare can be kept alive lol. These two countries are equally authoritarian in more ways than Americans like to believe. More archaic laws can land you here in jail than most countries, so I have no clue what the fixation over state control of other countries is all about. It's disingenuous dick wagging about how much "better" the states is when it's about the same. 

Lol at people living in their silly ignorant bubbles. calling China communist is about as dumb as calling America communist. But ok. Must have stupid propaganda in order to push stupid politics. Not surprising. It's easy to close one eye and claim another country is "communist" while pretending that the country you yourself is living in isn't a oligarchical, pretend democracy where essentially two parties share roughly 80% of the same ideology and continue to suppress true independent politics in a totalitarian nightmare of its own using close connection, ties and economic support of local businesses.


----------



## virus21

And we wonder why student debt is so high


----------



## JasonLives

Reaper said:


>


I honestly believe most countries have laws against "insults". We have it here in awell even if we have a low number of people in jail considering the demo. In theory you can go to jail for it, but never heard of such a case over here. Even though you by law actually can depending on how severe the insult is.
But of course its always debatable what should be against the law or not, or what should give you jail and what shouldnt.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> 2+ million people in jail ... Most for non violent crimes. 5 times the incarceration rate compared to commuinist china. It makes you wonder if in fact state authoritarianism in both countries are a severe problem, which it indeed is.
> 
> 10s of thousands 9f people in concentration camps. Babies stolen from families and state sanctioned selling to religious "charities".
> 
> Honesty and integrity doesn't matter as long as red scare can be kept alive lol. These two countries are equally authoritarian in more ways than Americans like to believe. More archaic laws can land you here in jail than most countries, so I have no clue what the fixation over state control of other countries is all about. It's disingenuous dick wagging about how much "better" the states is when it's about the same.
> 
> Lol at people living in their silly ignorant bubbles. calling China communist is about as dumb as calling America communist. But ok. Must have stupid propaganda in order to push stupid politics. Not surprising. It's easy to close one eye and claim another country is "communist" while pretending that the country you yourself is living in isn't a oligarchical, pretend democracy where essentially two parties share roughly 80% of the same ideology and continue to suppress true independent politics in a totalitarian nightmare of its own using close connection, ties and economic support of local businesses.


Need more people in jail!

Let's look at something interesting, past the China talk etc. American companies have bowed before China's demands, the NBA would have fired that GM had it not been for Social Media outrage. Athlete activists are silent on HK or won't critique China. Google which is the bastion of all that is "Left" in business does loads of work for China. The US is China's bitch. :laugh:

How long before Social Credit is implemented?


----------



## Reaper

JasonLives said:


> I honestly believe most countries have laws against "insults". We have it here in awell even if we have a low number of people in jail considering the demo. In theory you can go to jail for it, but never heard of such a case over here. Even though you by law actually can depending on how severe the insult is.
> But of course its always debatable what should be against the law or not, or what should give you jail and what shouldnt.


Lack of enforcement isn't a good defense for a fucked up law. 

That would be like saying "well, Pakistanis have never executed anyone for blasphemy even though that's what the law says" ... it's not a defense of the law. It's merely side-tracking from having to actively oppose and repeal it. Because as long as the law exists, it can be used to oppress someone at some point in time over it. 

This is what's happening with the current american penal system. Instead of actively forcing prison reform by claiming that the laws themselves are retarded, Americans are side-stepping the issue entirely and trying to create "look the other way standards" - especially with things like non-violent crime. 

Get the fucking _laws _off the books.


----------



## Ryder92

Stephen90 said:


> I did not know Ben Shapiro was a member of WF. Welcome Ben.


One star post.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> And we wonder why student debt is so high


Not sure if you've seen the meme about how we're at lowest levels of unemployment because people are holding down multiple jobs just to be able to eat and afford housing. 

People who thumb their nose down on certain degrees will eventually find their own degrees just as devalued not just because people are picking shit degrees but because we're going to enter a situation where even the currently in-demand degrees will be just as worthless.

These are all symptoms of the world we're creating by allowing uncontrolled private tyranny to exist.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Not sure if you've seen the meme about how we're at lowest levels of unemployment because people are holding down multiple jobs just to be able to eat and afford housing.
> 
> People who thumb their nose down on certain degrees will eventually find their own degrees just as devalued not just because people are picking shit degrees but because we're going to enter a situation where even the currently in-demand degrees will be just as worthless.
> 
> These are all symptoms of the world we're creating by allowing uncontrolled private tyranny to exist.


Agreed. I have a degree and it didn't do me any good in the end.


----------



## Stephen90

Ryder92 said:


> One star post.


Funny coming a guy who has nothing but red stars and sends me nothing but lame,rude and immature private messages.


----------



## Ryder92

Stephen90 said:


> Funny coming a guy who has nothing but red stars.


90% because of you. Which shows just how worthless the system is.


----------



## Stephen90

Ryder92 said:


> Only because of you. Which shows just how worthless the system is.


Of course you would come out and defend your Israel first hero Ben Shapiro.


----------



## Ryder92

Stephen90 said:


> Of course you would come out and defend your Israel first hero Ben Shapiro.


Says the one that has a commie sympathizer for a hero.

It’s not a surprise that he ended up being so screwed up though considering he has a ho mammy that sleeps with her offsprings teammates.


----------



## Stephen90

Ryder92 said:


> Says the one that has a commie sympathizer for a hero.


LeBron isn't my hero but ok. Also what's with this?


----------



## JasonLives

Reaper said:


> Lack of enforcement isn't a good defense for a fucked up law.
> 
> That would be like saying "well, Pakistanis have never executed anyone for blasphemy even though that's what the law says" ... it's not a defense of the law. It's merely side-tracking from having to actively oppose and repeal it. Because as long as the law exists, it can be used to oppress someone at some point in time over it.
> 
> This is what's happening with the current american penal system. Instead of actively forcing prison reform by claiming that the laws themselves are retarded, Americans are side-stepping the issue entirely and trying to create "look the other way standards" - especially with things like non-violent crime.
> 
> Get the fucking _laws _off the books.


Its not really a lack of enforcement. They are enforced, but the prosecutor very rarely go for the max sentence when it comes to crimes. Here you can get jail time for shoplifting but just like with "insult" but it almost never happends.
Kinda like murder, just because there is a max number of years its very rarely used unless its especially vicious. 
I think jail can be perfectly fine if the circumstances are met. I still have faith in the justice system.

Doesnt mean that shoplifting or insulting others should be off the law books because they can in some cases get you jail time. But thats my opinion, I know everyone has their opinion on what laws should be removed and not. 

Over here the public support is right now for harsher sentences. And politicians are going at it trying to one up one another on crime and punishment. 
I personally think its ridiculous, since research has shown harsher sentences doesnt do anything for the crime rate. I think its sad direction for out justice system, BUT that the public opinion right now.


----------



## CamillePunk

virus21 said:


> And we wonder why student debt is so high


Yeah, you've got the causality of this relationship completely backwards. :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.campaignforfreespeech.or...19/10/Free-Speech-Survey-Standard-Banners.pdf

Grim forecast. Worse yet, a wholly predictable one. 

As John Greenleaf Whittier's "Maud Muller" put it, "For all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: 'It might have been'!" 

No exit ramps on Bon Scot's infamous boulevard here in the U.S.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> http://www.campaignforfreespeech.or...19/10/Free-Speech-Survey-Standard-Banners.pdf
> 
> Grim forecast. Worse yet, a wholly predictable one.
> 
> As John Greenleaf Whittier's "Maud Muller" put it, "For all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: 'It might have been'!"
> 
> No exit ramps on Bon Scot's infamous boulevard here in the U.S.



Yikes. People agreeing with jail time for speech, then again our country has a massive culture of imprisoning people. It's scary to think people would give up their rights so easily. We mock China yet those people live in an oppressive Government, our people want an oppressive Government and limited freedom. :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

I wonder what the numbers on that survey about free speech would've been with the caveat that they were only talking about restricting it for white people and/or conservatives. :mj


----------



## virus21

This is Chile

https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/dn5vof/video_of_the_protests_that_happened_today_on/


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> This is Chile
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/dn5vof/video_of_the_protests_that_happened_today_on/


Capitalism and Fascism are essentially one and the same thing now. I mean, economic freedom in Chile is somewhere in the high 70's. But we know that "economic freedom" is basically an euphemism for "Soul-sucking Capitalist Pigs". 

Chile's protests are anti-capitalist as a consequence of the massive inequality created by puppet American governments since the 70's, but yeah ... let's just ignore this one shall we. At least 15 people have been butchered by the fascist republic ... No media coverage. 

Honestly speaking, at least they were able to take to the streets. America has similar levels of economic inequality and people dying because they can't even go to a doctor, but here the poverty stricken dogs who make 20 bucks an hour are trained to bark at other dogs who make 7 bucks an hour that they don't deserve to make more money because they're so afraid that they'll not make their measly 20 bucks an hour if we raised taxes. 



> On Monday evening, the National Institute of Human Rights said more than 1,420 civilians had gone to hospital with injuries from the unrest. At least 84 of those had wounds caused by weapons, according to the institute. More than 2,500 had been reportedly detained since the unrest began.


But Lebron is a tool tho!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.live5news.com/2019/10/25/man-who-killed-family-members-mt-pleasant-found-not-guilty-by-reason-mental-insanity/



> *Man who killed 4 family members in Mt. Pleasant found not guilty by reason of insanity*
> 
> CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) - Lovequawn Scott was turned away from a mental health facility the day before he killed four of his family members in Mount Pleasant in 2018, said Jennifer Kneece Shealy with the Ninth Circuit’s Solicitor’s Office in court Friday.
> 
> “He was denied treatment because he did not have the requisite funds and no insurance,” she added.
> 
> Scott was found not guilty by reason of insanity in a bench trial Friday morning.
> 
> The solicitors, detectives, defense team and judge all agreed on the decision, saying Scott was not criminally responsible for his actions at the time of the murders.
> 
> They said Scott was suffering from the onset of schizophrenia and murderous thoughts when he attacked his grandparents, aunt, and niece.
> 
> Shealy said such an agreement was rare but necessary in this case because it was clear Scott was very sick.
> 
> Heartbreaking details of the tragedy were presented in court.
> 
> His Aunt Kenya, one of the victims, was the person who took Scott to a local mental health facility near his home.
> 
> “He is reported to have made statements that there was a little man in his throat talking to him and telling him to do things he did not want to do,” Shealy said.
> 
> She said Scott was turned away, untreated.
> 
> Later that morning, she said Scott went to the family’s church enraged and weeping. Two people calmed him down by praying and singing with him.
> 
> His cousin Faith, another of the victims, texted close family members that she was afraid because Scott was acting strangely the night before the murders.
> 
> Two mental health doctors’ reports concluded Scott “did not have the requisite ability to distinguish right from wrong due to the onset of mental illness and his being in a paranoid state,” Shealy said.
> 
> To be abundantly cautious, the Solicitor’s office had a third doctor from MUSC review the case, and he concluded the same.
> 
> After the murders, they said, Scott went to a psychiatric hospital where he listed three of the victims on his visitation list, not understanding they were gone.
> 
> Detectives said he was paranoid during his interview and worried he thought officers were trying to poison him. He told officers he did “not want to hear any evil.”


Heathcare reform? Where we at with that? Mental health reform? Where we at with that?

It costs money so never mind, I guess.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> Heathcare reform? Where we at with that? Mental health reform? Where we at with that?
> 
> It costs money so never mind, I guess.


Sorry. I make 15 bucks an hour, how DARE you even imply that some poor dredge in society that makes 7 bucks an hour deserves to have things I don't because I work harder than that person to make my shit amount of money.

A few dead people are ok because I dream of buying a yacht one day and if I have anyone give any money to any poor people than I may never be able to have a yacht. Sorry dead people. Collateral damage is just the cost of my future possibility to have a luxurious life.


----------



## Reaper

Saw this at our local grocery store today. 

No storms on the horizon. 

Just cheap food marked down even cheaper. 

Empty shelves. 

I mean, it's funny to me because people love to talk about "socialist" countries as having "empty store shelves" through carefully selective narratives. 










Flew off the shelves and whoever bought 10 saved a grand total of $2.29 ....

Work too hard for too little. Don't have enough time or money to cook meals at home. Eat cheap food which is being sold cheaper because it's too close to expiration date. Get sick from working too hard and eating cheap food. Can't see a doctor because no money. Need to be hospitalized eventually. Either ends up in crippling debt making him even more poor, or just dies from the illness that he was never able to afford to treat. 

But capitalism cannot be blamed for this death.


----------



## CamillePunk

So much extrapolated from a couple of empty shelves in a grocery store. :heston Even the most mundane of occurrences is ideological evidence.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://reason.com/2019/10/25/bernie-sanders-manages-to-make-marijuana-legalization-cost-50-billion/



> Bernie Sanders Manages To Make Marijuana Legalization Cost $50 Billion
> 
> The senator's marijuana legalization plan is heavy on taxes, regulation, and executive power.
> 
> Yesterday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) released at 4:20 P.M. (sigh) an ambitious marijuana legalization plan that is heavy on taxes, spending, regulation, and executive action.
> 
> Within the first 100 days of his administration, the Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate is promising to issue an executive order instructing the attorney general to deschedule marijuana as a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, something legalization advocates say would be a huge win.
> 
> "Directing the attorney general to declassify marijuana would eliminate significant obstacles to medical marijuana research and also alleviate the banking problems facing marijuana companies operating under state law," says Matthew Schweich of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP).
> 
> Marijuana's current classification as a Schedule I drug prohibits state-legal cannabis businesses off from using U.S. banks, meaning they lack access to financing, payment processing services, and even basic bank accounts.
> 
> Sanders' plan also calls for expunging the records of those convicted of federal marijuana offenses, re-sentencing federal marijuana prisoners, and providing funding for states and cities to do the same. While expungement goes beyond a president's pardon power and would require the cooperation of the courts (and possibly Congress), throwing the executive branch's weight behind an expungement effort would speed the process along, Schweich says.
> 
> *Because this is a Sanders plan, his legalization initiative also calls for more federal spending and regulation. Sanders wants to tax the newly legal marijuana industry to the tune of $50 billion over 10 years, and then spend that revenue on new grant and development programs. This includes $20 billion in grants to "entrepreneurs of color who continue to face discrimination in access to capital."* Another $10 billion will be given out as grants to "businesses that are at least 51 percent owned or controlled by those in disproportionately impacted areas or individuals who have been arrested for or convicted of marijuana offenses."
> 
> Sanders would establish a separate but similar $10 billion grant program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture to subsidize marijuana grow operations run by people with marijuana arrest or conviction records. Lastly, he would set up another $10 billion community development fund that would "provide grants to communities hit hardest by the War on Drugs."
> 
> *To prevent "mostly white, mostly male, and already rich 'cannabiz' entrepreneurs" from dominating the industry, Sanders would impose strict, albeit unspecified, market share and franchise caps on marijuana businesses.* His plan would also ban tobacco companies and any other corporation that has "created cancer-causing products," or been found guilty of deceptive marketing tactics, from participating in the marijuana industry.
> 
> "The idea of preventing tobacco companies from investing in marijuana companies is something that requires some more scrutiny from a constitutional perspective," says Schweich. "If we are regulating them properly, their investors don't really matter."
> 
> So long as marijuana companies are barred from making false claims about their products or targeting advertisements at children, argues Schweich, the particular ownership of these companies shouldn't really be a concern to the federal government.
> 
> All things considered, Sanders' plan would do a lot to wind down the federal government's destructive, misguided, and outdated prohibition of marijuana. Descheduling marijuana could also be accomplished by unilateral executive action. Having Sanders pre-committed to that is, therefore, a big deal.
> 
> The massive amount of new spending and taxes that Sanders wants to pair with legalization, not to mention his anti-corporate regulatory regime, would likely make it difficult to bring the entire existing cannabis industry into the legal market. But those elements would also likely be a tough sell to any Congress.


So ridiculous. :lol Can't just legalize it, gotta throw in a bunch of stupid socialist and identity politics bullshit in there too.


----------



## skypod

Ugh why can't he just hand it over to large corporate tobacco industries to monopolize the market and raise prices. So unfair!!! The biggest problem in America today is that the rich aren't rich enough and the poor aren't poor enough!!


----------



## Miss Sally

skypod said:


> Ugh why can't he just hand it over to large corporate tobacco industries to monopolize the market and raise prices. So unfair!!! The biggest problem in America today is that the rich aren't rich enough and the poor aren't poor enough!!


Yeah it's the tobacco companies making money off pot and keeping it pricey, not the over the top regulations and very select licences. 8*D



CamillePunk said:


> I wonder what the numbers on that survey about free speech would've been with the caveat that they were only talking about restricting it for white people and/or conservatives. :mj


Probably very high, America's a pretty racist country. Everyone's trying to silence everyone else or get something over on the other, it's pretty amusing. The part of the survey that made me laugh is that a small majority favor punishing people for speech but yet a large majority support the second amendment which is really confusing. Do they support their own speech and not others? Or are they mostly made up of mongs who don't understand what freedom is because they live in a prison planet mentality? Questions!


----------



## virus21

Movies! just did a program about dystopias in film. We are at the point of several of them.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Movies! just did a program about dystopias in film. We are at the point of several of them.


https://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhE8Up5mCyG60C8nLD

Saw this video today of a Store Owner (allegedly) beating a woman asking for change. 

Sucker punches her in the face. Kicks are in the vagina and then goes on to kick her several times in the head before walking off. Yes, Culture has everything to do with this because people in this country constantly and consistently dehumanize those with little to no wealth. Hating people who are poor is deeply ingrained within the mindsets of a lot of people. This is the outcome of it. The comments on the video are pretty disgusting and reveal how deep the sickness is. 

No matter how many news you share about how disgusting a lot of people in this country are and how shit the culture is in some parts of it, most choose to live in complete denial of how horrible things are here and getting.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> No matter how many news you share about how disgusting a lot of people in this country are and how shit the culture is in some parts of it, most choose to live in complete denial of how horrible things are here and getting.


As long as they have their breads and circuses, they're happy to ignore it.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> As long as they have their breads and circuses, they're happy to ignore it.


Sorry. 

Bread is too expensive. We need to update our language from talking about bread and replace it with Soupy Ramen and Canned food.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Sorry.
> 
> Bread is too expensive. We need to update our language from talking about bread and replace it with Soupy Ramen and cheap pasta.


That works too. Unless you buy bread at dollar tree.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> That works too. Unless you buy bread at dollar tree.


True, or buy nearly stale bread that's close to getting moldy on a buy one get one free sale.

You could always work 40 hours a week for Disney and eat out of Trash Cans. That works too.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> True, or buy nearly stale bread that's close to getting moldy on a buy one get one free sale.
> 
> You could always work 40 hours a week for Disney and eat out of Trash Cans. That works too.


And I doubt Disney did anything to change this.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> And I doubt Disney did anything to change this.


They parroted the same bullshit that people on here do: "We have an education fund. Get a better education so they can find better opportunities elsewhere or in the organization if they exist".

Yup. Now that you have a master's and about 100-150k in debt, you're finally gonna make that 15 bucks an hour. Maybe. 

What a shithole.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> They parroted the same bullshit that people on here do: "We have an education fund. Get a better education so they can find better opportunities elsewhere or in the organization if they exist".
> 
> Yup. Now that you have a master's and about 100-150k in debt, you're finally gonna make that 15 bucks an hour. Maybe.
> 
> What a shithole.


No kidding. The modern Let them eat cake


----------



## virus21

> The Justice Department is investigating its own investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 election. NPR's Scott Simon talks with Robert Litt, former DNI General Counsel Robert Litt.
> 
> SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
> 
> The U.S. Department of Justice will now investigate its own investigation about Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller released his report in April and documented the extent of that interference as well as several instances that many analysts said amounted to obstruction of justice. Attorney General Barr concluded the report failed to prove the president had obstructed justice, and the controversy, of course, has continued.
> 
> Robert Litt is a former general counsel at the office of the director of National Intelligence and joins us in our studios. Mr. Litt, thanks so much for being with us.
> 
> ROBERT LITT: Thanks for having me.
> 
> SIMON: You were questioned at one point in this process. Can you tell us if anything in that questioning made you think that the review would become a criminal investigation?
> 
> LITT: Well, actually, I haven't been questioned yet.
> 
> SIMON: Our apologies.
> 
> LITT: That's all right. John Durham, who is the United States attorney for Connecticut who was appointed to handle this matter on behalf of Attorney General Barr, has been working from the bottom up as one often does in a matter like this. I don't know if he will want to talk to me, but he hasn't yet.
> 
> SIMON: From what you know about John Durham, the U.S. attorney from Connecticut who is in charge of the investigation, what do you think he's looking for?
> 
> LITT: It's a little hard to tell. The original brief that he had was to look essentially at how the intelligence agencies handled this matter. We know from reporting within the last couple of days that he has decided to make at least a portion of this a criminal matter. We don't know what he's looking at criminally. We don't know whether it's, as some people have suggested, that he's decided that there's a basis for a criminal inquiry into the origins of the investigation. He might be looking at something much narrower criminally - for example, leaks of classified information. Or - we don't really know. I think it's - it would be helpful if the Department of Justice actually clarified which aspect of his investigation has become criminal.
> 
> SIMON: Is there any concern when it gets into the territory of a criminal investigation that that will discourage and inhibit other people from coming forward to offer testimony about urgent public issues?
> 
> LITT: I think there is a - that is one concern because people are always much more apprehensive when they fear that there is a potential criminal liability at the end of the investigation. I think there's also a serious concern about how intelligence analysts in the future are going to approach controversial issues if they think there is a chance that they will be subject to politically motivated inquiries afterwards. And I think that's something we all need to be very concerned about.
> 
> SIMON: Do you mean to imply that this is a political inquiry?
> 
> LITT: Well, I think there's certainly a great public perception that this is politically motivated. I know John Durham. I have confidence that he's not a politically motivated person. But the optics are not good when you have the attorney general going and personally intervening with foreign governments in an effort to get information out of them to support an inquiry into the attorney general's own organizations.
> 
> SIMON: In the half a minute we have left, does a popularly elected president have the right to say to the Department of Justice, this is something you ought to look into?
> 
> LITT: I think he has the right in the sense that he is in charge of the executive branch. But historically, presidents of both parties have refrained from doing that because it's so critical to the public perception that the Justice Department's inquiries be perceived as free from politics. And so there have been firewalls set up to ensure that that kind of political influence doesn't happen. Those firewalls don't appear to be being honored today.
> 
> SIMON: Former DNI General Counsel Robert Litt, thanks so much for joining us.
> 
> LITT: Thank you.


https://www.npr.org/2019/10/26/773675421/doj-investigates-itself


----------



## Reaper

The USA creators (or potentially the propaganda arm of the US Government since they have specific departments dedicated to "working with" entertainment companies) using Call of Duty to propagandize poor kids into believing that American War Crime of massacring retreating forces was committed by Russians, not Americans and its Allies. 

The empire is real folks. 

https://www-ccn-com.cdn.ampproject....d-for-anti-russian-pro-usa-war-crime-rewrite/










But China.

------

Meanwhile in Chile:










They know EXACTLY who the real enemy is :banderas:

---

Meanwhile in Spain: Police caught infiltrating protesters with mercs in masks to engage in violence:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188759400456097792


----------



## CamillePunk

Yikes, Kyle got out-debated by Charlie Kirk from Turning Point USA of all people. :lol Did not see that coming. While Kirk stuck to facts and principles, Kyle largely relied on audience support, Trump impressions, and empty zingers like "it's called the social contract" and "Go live in Somalia!". I was expecting Kyle to crush Kirk here, but his performance felt more like a snarky John Stewart act where he relies on the fact that his audience already agrees with him and won't scrutinize what he says.

Oh God, I just remembered that at one point Kyle interrupted Charlie to say "You sure know how to talk a lot" and then looked to the audience as if he just delivered a death blow of some kind. :lol This was hard to watch as someone who likes Kyle and doesn't like Charlie.


----------



## Reaper

American neo-libtards literally so alienated from the masses thanks to their daddies and nepotism that they don't know what a place designed to help feed the homeless looks like.

Scott Walker is the Governor of WI apparently. And these are the shitheads Americans vote for. The food pantry being in the mid-west. The place where this asshole is supposed to be governing .. 

In a democracy if everything remains broken, then at some point you have to start blaming the retards who vote against their own interests.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189014098970722305
Revering the leader of ISIS, a mass murdering mass raping slave trading terrorist organization, to own the cons. Why does Baghdadi get more positive coverage than people they smear like Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Stefan Molyneux, and others? Or, you know, the Trumps. :lol


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> American neo-libtards literally so alienated from the masses thanks to their daddies and nepotism that they don't know what a place designed to help feed the homeless looks like.
> 
> Scott Walker is the Governor of WI apparently. And these are the shitheads Americans vote for. The food pantry being in the mid-west. The place where this asshole is supposed to be governing ..
> 
> In a democracy if everything remains broken, then at some point you have to start blaming the retards who vote against their own interests.


Walker got voted out last election


----------



## CamillePunk

This is what happens when you tell the truth on corporate media. :lol


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Walker got voted out last election


Aah. Still says governor on his Twitter profile.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Aah. Still says governor on his Twitter profile.


Well he needs to change it then. Tony Evers is the governor


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> American neo-libtards literally so alienated from the masses thanks to their daddies and nepotism that they don't know what a place designed to help feed the homeless looks like.
> 
> Scott Walker is the Governor of WI apparently. And these are the shitheads Americans vote for. The food pantry being in the mid-west. The place where this asshole is supposed to be governing ..
> 
> *In a democracy if everything remains broken, then at some point you have to start blaming the retards who vote against their own interests.*


This is what the screeching mass of idiots don't understand. Everyone loves Democracy until it turns on you. Before Supreme Court made Gay marriage legal, Cali lost the vote a few times. CALI. Why? Because the brown voters the neoliberal whites love to babble about voted against it. It's a double edge sword.

Also.. Ladies and Gents.. our fucking media.



Spoiler: /sigh















They're now trying to change up what we call terrorists.


----------



## DOPA

@Miss Sally The most important thing to the more Democrat partisan media is opposing Trump, so they'll make any article or headline with the intention of either downplaying or deflecting what he has done which could in any way be seen as positive.

Even if the outcome ends up being humanizing terrorists like in this case.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Spoiler: /sigh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're now trying to change up what we call terrorists.


I'm ok with taking whatever steps are required by local authorities to destroy terrorists in their own countries --- which most of these countries were doing before Americans fucked it all up. There is a valid reason to demand that the US stays out of countries, but glowing accolades for terrorists is NOT the way to solve this problem of American intervention. But rather telling people that the American government creates the problem that future american governments try to "fix" by doing the same thing the previous government did. The media is however owned by the same companies that have huge defence contracts so they don't really want to put an end to any wars -- they just want to create new targets. They're the ones that pushed us back into cold war with Russia and are trying to start a cold war with China -- and it has nothing to do with Trump. Trump is just their excuse. 

All the countries that are more isolationist in Scandinavia, Canada, Australia etc are doing just fucking fine - AND they don't have resource problems either. All have functioning economies with minimal foreign exposure (not saying that they're not involved in American conflicts, but many are starting to pull farther and farther away from incessant US war mongering). 



DOPA said:


> Even if the outcome ends up being humanizing terrorists like in this case.


It's not just Trump. It's any outside of the big 4 or 5 that are handpicked by the neoconservative democrats as well. For example, look at what they're doing to Bernie and Tulsi for proof while how they exalt War Criminal Obama for having no blood on his hands. It's a game of "maybe yes, maybe no" where they'll pretend to be anti-war when it's an non-democrat candidate/president and then shut the fuck up when democrat presidents drag everyone to even more wars than republicans.


----------



## jroc72191

*Michelle Obama criticizes white flight "yall were running from us"*

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michelle-obama-white-flight-yall-235359023.html



umm isnt this hypocritical considering her and Barry just bought a 12 million dollar vineyard? idk man shes a democrat and we all know they cant be hypocrites its different!


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189608880868904962
Still can't believe how quickly the Harris candidacy fell apart. :lol I thought she'd be in the final 2.


----------



## deepelemblues

So the "whistleblower" (I believe the CIA term is "operator" or perhaps "asset") is a straight up swamp thing "CIA analyst" that has worked for Brennan, Schiff and Biden :ha

Muh Russia 2.0, the last gasp of the deep state. Durham and Barr are gathering information for the indictments re: Muh Russia 1.0, it's all going to break right at the height of the 2020 campaign and once :trump is reelected these people be goin to prison. And not the Club Fed either


----------



## Reaper

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-links-cia-backed-units-to-afghanistan-abuses



> *CIA-linked unit accused of atrocities in Afghanistan*
> Document details 14 deadly raids by pro-government units with support of US intelligence
> 
> Emma Graham-Harrison in Kabul
> 
> Thu 31 Oct 2019 10.05 GMTFirst published on Thu 31 Oct 2019 03.30 GMT
> Shares
> 292
> Afghan security officials present a group of suspected militants to the media during a news conference in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
> Afghan security officials present a group of suspected militants to the media during a news conference in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Photograph: Muhammad Sadiq/EPA
> The Afghan soldiers who swept through Kulalgo village one late August night shot three of Dr Ulfatullah’s relatives carefully, a single bullet through their left eye, faces otherwise untouched as blood pooled below their bodies on the floor of the family home.
> 
> The last killing was less precise, and left the face of university student Ansarullah badly disfigured. His family thought perhaps he had heard the muffled gunshot that ended a cousin’s life, and briefly tried to struggle against his captors.
> 
> The men who killed them were from a pro-government force backed by the CIA and largely unaccountable to Afghan authorities, the family say, one of several which operate across east and south Afghanistan in traditional Taliban strongholds.
> 
> In the last two years, as the battle for Afghanistan has intensified and a regional Isis affiliate has joined the civil war, there has been a sharp rise in abusive night-time raids by these forces, according to a report by Human Rights Watch.
> 
> Thousands of men strong, the units have been implicated in multiple, serious human rights abuses including summary executions, forcibly disappearing detainees, and attacking medical facilities.
> 
> The report, titled They have shot many like this, details 14 deadly raids, where victims have included an elderly woman, a child, and a 60-year-old tribal elder, and says that abusive visits by these units have become a daily fact of life for many communities.
> 
> “I believe the 14 [raids we investigated] are only a fraction of the cases of this kind … but because they occur in remote areas most go unreported,” said Patricia Gossman, associate Asia director for HRW and author of the report.
> 
> “In ramping up operations against the Taliban, the CIA has enabled abusive Afghan forces to commit atrocities including extrajudicial executions and disappearances. In case after case, these forces have simply shot people in their custody.”
> 
> According to witnesses, on 11 August this year troops from one of these CIA-backed units – which, the witnesses said, was accompanied by at least one US soldier and a translator – served as judge, jury and executioner for 11 men in Kulgago village.
> 
> Four were executed in the family compound of Dr Ulfatullah, a pharmacist who lost two sons and two cousins, and has moved his family to Kabul to campaign for justice. “The blood of our sons is still in the rooms where they were killed so it’s difficult for us to live there,” he told the Guardian in the Afghan capital.
> 
> Although the family campaign has led to meetings with senior Afghan officials, including the defence minister, head of the National Directorate of Security (NDS) intelligence service, and the provincial governor, they say they do not feel any closer to either understanding why their children were killed or seeing justice.
> 
> “The government should tell us why they were killed. Until we get an answer we will keep asking,” he said. HRW said it did not know of any case where someone had been held accountable for abuse by CIA-backed troops.
> 
> The report identifies five different forces which nominally come under the control of Afghanistan’s intelligence service, the NDS. Unofficially though, they are a law unto themselves.
> 
> A security source said operational sign-offs required by the NDS are treated as a nominal courtesy, and sometimes done after the fact. The governor of Paktia province also told Ulfatullah’s family that he had no authority over the forces.
> 
> The Nato combat operation in Afghanistan officially ended in 2014, and now only supports Afghan security forces. But the US has a separate counter-terrorism mission in Afghanistan, which has continued fighting aggressively, and includes the covert CIA-backed forces.
> 
> There has been growing concern about the civilian toll from operations under this mission, particularly air strikes, with casualties rising steadily from these since 2014, according to UN figures.
> 
> But deaths and injuries caused by search operations have been rising too, with more than half caused by NDS special forces – the units with CIA links – according to the UN. These incidents also show more victims killed than injured, a disturbing reversal of common civilian casualty patterns in the conflict.
> 
> “The high number of fatalities compared to the number of injured suggests that force was employed indiscriminately,” the UN said.
> 
> In Kulalgo, survivors say the killings have emptied the village. Drones and planes still patrol the skies, so those who do stay are frightened to sleep in their own homes.
> 
> “The schools are shut down, the agricultural work is not being done. The youth are not staying in their homes at night because of fear of night raids,” said Ulfatullah’s only surviving son, Hekmatullah. “There is no life in the village at the moment because people are scared they will come back and kill more innocent people.”
> 
> The young men in Kulalgo were targeted as insurgents, but Shafiullah and Hayatullah, both 26, worked for the same government as the men who killed them, as a teacher and an education ministry official respectively.
> 
> Emanullah, 19, helped in the family pharmacy and his cousin Ansarullah, also 19, was in the second year of a chemistry degree. And the choice of targets seemed casual; Hekmatullah was taken off with the men who were killed, but released just minutes before the shooting after he told the soldiers he worked for the UN.
> 
> The family insist that if they are given any evidence of Taliban links they will drop their campaign immediately, but they are sure they were not legitimate targets. “If they can prove that our kids were wrong, we will forgive everything, but if it can’t we want (the people who did this) brought to justice,” said Ulfatullah.
> 
> Mistaken identity, poor intelligence and local political rivalries all led to civilians being targeted in raids investigated by HRW, the group said. Some families were also attacked after providing food to insurgents, even if they acted under duress.
> 
> The CIA said it had not had time to investigate the Kulalgo raid, or any of the other raids detailed in the HRW report, in a response to the rights group.
> 
> It said reports of abuse were “likely false or exaggerated”, and attacked the Taliban for spreading false propaganda. “We neither condone nor would knowingly participate in illegal activities,” the statement said.
> 
> The accounts given to the Guardian came from relatives and survivors, not insurgents. “CIA conducts its global operations in accordance with law and under a robust system of oversight,” Timothy Barrett, the CIA press secretary, told the Guardian.
> 
> Another villager said the raids would only push people into the arms of insurgents, an argument made consistently by human rights groups over two decades and at one point when Hamid Karzai was president, by the Afghan government.
> 
> “We invested in these guys to work against radicalisation, and they are the ones who got killed,” asked one local who supported the young men’s education. “They are part of our planning for how we should brighten our future, get rid of the influence of Taliban. What will be the impact of their deaths?”


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189608880868904962
> Still can't believe how quickly the Harris candidacy fell apart. :lol I thought she'd be in the final 2.


Tulsi buried her then passed her :lol


----------



## skypod

There should be a comedy movie made out of the Harris campaign. Everything they've tried to do they've failed at. All over the place. They can't even get centrist support. Hell Joe Biden has the centrist vote and he's basically a dressing gown and a walking IV away from being nursing home resident.


----------



## virus21

> Why it matters: China's semiconductor industry has largely depended on American technology, but China has long been working on technological self-reliance. In the wake of the US-China trade war, China seems to be heeding calls of urgency to wean itself off of US semiconductors and IP and accelerate its own semiconductor industry -- which some believe could hurt American interests in the long run.
> China has established a new state-backed semiconductor fund, with the intent of advancing its domestic semiconductor initiatives and reducing its reliance on US technology. The fund currently sits at 204 billion yuan ($28.9 billion) and is the second of its kind, with the first state-led fund taken place in 2014.
> 
> China is the largest consumer of semiconductors in the world, and Bloomberg reports that China imports roughly $200B worth of American semiconductors annually. In recent years, China has made moves to stimulate its own semiconductor industry, but the back and forth US-China tensions have given Beijing a new sense of urgency.
> 
> According to Bloomberg, the fund's capital is coming from state organizations and the Chinese government, with China's Ministry of Finance pouring about 22 billion yuan into the fund. The China Development Bank invested another 22 billion yuan, while the fund has also attracted monetary support from other "local governments and state-owned enterprises."


https://www.techspot.com/news/82556-china-establishes-29b-fund-wean-itself-off-us.html


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> https://www.techspot.com/news/82556-china-establishes-29b-fund-wean-itself-off-us.html


Yup. Can't have a self reliant nation and therefore while there are several countries with worker rights rebellions going on right now, the only one we hear about from the neoliberals is the Hong Kong one. 

Let's not forget that when Hong Kong was ruled by the British there were several massacres on the streets when they rebelled as well. 

Yes, the Chinese government may be asshoe but the US has too much blood on its hands now for their "concern" to be genuine. They need to propagandize their population to villainise others as much as possible.


----------



## virus21

> hortly after a unanimous vote in the UN Security Council to pass a resolution on women, peace and security, the U.S. Mission to the UN, headed by Ambassador Kelly Craft, released a press statement criticizing references to "sexual and reproductive health."
> 
> The resolution referenced previously passed resolutions including the term, which Craft deemed unacceptable. "I must note that we cannot accept references to 'sexual and reproductive health,' nor any references to 'safe termination of pregnancy' or language that would promote abortion or suggest a right to abortion."
> 
> The statement continues, "The U.N should not put itself in a position of promoting or suggesting a right to abortion, whether it is humanitarian or development work."
> 
> Other countries in the open debate spoke strongly of including references to sexual and reproductive health, including the United Kingdom and Belgium.
> 
> 
> UK at the UN ??
> ✔
> @UKUN_NewYork
> · Oct 29, 2019
> Replying to @UKUN_NewYork and 3 others
> We talk a lot about implementation here but civil society are responsible for making this Council’s resolutions a reality on the ground.
> 
> They are the ones on the frontlines. They need increased recognition & support in order to effect greater [email protected] #WPSin2020
> 
> View image on Twitter
> 
> UK at the UN ??
> ✔
> @UKUN_NewYork
> We have not seen sufficient progress in women’s meaningful participation.
> 
> In all cases this needs to include sexual and reproductive health services. #SRHR play a vital role in ensuring women can play a truly equal role in the building of their [email protected] #WPS
> 
> View image on Twitter
> 62
> 9:48 AM - Oct 29, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 51 people are talking about this
> This is not the first time that that the U.S. has pushed back against including these rights in Security Council resolutions.
> 
> In April 2019, a draft resolution circulated prior to the Security Council vote included the term. The U.S. Mission responded by threatening to veto, thereby killing the resolution, if the term was not taken out.
> 
> The resolution, which centered on sexual and gender-based violence in conflict, was passed without the inclusion of any reference to sexual and reproductive health.
> 
> Kelly Craft UN
> The new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nation (UN), Kelly Craft, takes up the United State's seat at the Security Council at UN headquarters on September 12, 2019 in New York City.
> SPENCER PLATT/GETTY
> In an article on International Peace Institute's Global Observatory, Siri May from Center for Reproductive Rights wrote, "It is arcane to suggest that providing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services to survivors of conflict-related sexual violence is even up for debate."
> 
> May also noted that quality sexual and reproductive health can address issues such as, "unsafe abortion, maternal and low birthweight, miscarriage, premature labor and sexually transmitted infections for women and girls." These quality health services are particularly difficult to access in conflict situations, May said.
> 
> Representatives of the Trump administration at the UN have been consistent with the position, pushing back on the inclusion of sexual and reproductive health not just in the Security Council, but across the UN.
> 
> In September, US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar spoke at the General Assembly, saying, "We do not support references to ambiguous terms and expressions such as 'sexual and reproductive health and rights' in U.N. documents, because they can undermine the critical role of the family and promote practices like abortion in circumstances that do not enjoy international consensus and which can be misinterpreted by U.N. agencies."


https://www.newsweek.com/united-states-objects-mention-sexual-reproductive-health-un-resolution-women-says-it-1468541?


----------



## virus21

> The budget presented by Premier Jason Kenney and the UCP will force every single Albertan to pay for his $4.7-billion no-jobs corporate giveaway.
> 
> This budget will extract more in personal income taxes from every Albertan by disconnecting the tax code from inflation. This is a shocking betrayal of Jason Kenney’s central campaign promise.
> 
> The Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation blasted the move as a “hidden, sneaky tax.” Jason Kenney himself denounced this technique as a tax increase when he led the CTF. It’s a sneaky tax that will pull $600 million out of individual Albertans’ pockets.
> 
> And then there are the cuts.
> 
> All Albertans will pay more to register their cars and campers, more for home and car insurance, electricity, school fees, even visits to provincial museums.
> 
> Students will see their tuition costs skyrocket by 21 per cent over three years, and their parents won’t be able to apply those costs against their taxes anymore. That’s a tax increase.
> 
> More than 46,000 older Albertans will be kicked off the Seniors Drug Benefit Program, and income testing will be introduced for those who stay through that first purge. Those are families on fixed incomes that will have to find the money elsewhere to pay for the medication they need.
> 
> Jason Kenney has also targeted some of the most vulnerable for the deepest cuts.
> 
> Severely handicapped Albertans will immediately lose $30 a month in benefits, rising to $120 a month by 2023.
> 
> As many as 165,000 families living just above the poverty line will lose part of their child benefits, and 55,000 families will lose them entirely.
> 
> Almost $100 million in housing and rental support has also vanished.
> 
> There’s no doubt that these decisions will push thousands of Alberta children into poverty, and some families into homelessness.
> 
> This budget breaks a range of promises made by Jason Kenney and his government.
> 
> He promised education funding would keep pace with a growing student population. Promise broken — this budget provides $200 less for each student than last year.
> 
> He promised health spending would keep pace with population growth. Promise broken — this budget takes money out of hospitals, out of our ambulance system, and out of our diagnostic imaging and lab testing system.
> 
> Our government began the planning work on a badly needed redevelopment of the Red Deer Regional Hospital. Jason Kenney cut all of that planning money, and the hospital work has stopped.
> 
> Incredibly, there is no significant new funding for rural police, let alone the 500 new officers he promised. This budget has a one-time $9-million increase — less than the NDP committed to rural crime — and then quickly drops rural police funding to below 2018 levels. In a few months, Jason Kenney will be spending less on rural policing than our government did.
> 
> Albertans should not forget that one of Jason Kenney’s first acts as premier was to max out the province’s credit card on a $4.7-billion giveaway to the largest and most profitable corporations. We know this money has already been distributed to corporate shareholders without creating a single job. More than 27,000 Albertans have lost their jobs on Jason Kenney’s watch.
> 
> This budget does nothing to get them back to work. Budget 2019 simply forces every Albertan to pay for Kenney’s corporate handout.
> 
> NDP Leader Rachel Notley is the head of the official Opposition in Alberta.


https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/notley-kenney-has-betrayed-albertans-to-fund-a-4-7b-corporate-handout


----------



## CamillePunk

Beto drops out and Trump rips into him. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1190434549148397568
Good stuff as usual from the funniest president of all time.


----------



## deepelemblues

President Troll Master Class delivers another

Master Class


----------



## dele

Reaper said:


> Scott Walker is the Governor of WI apparently. And these are the shitheads Americans vote for. The food pantry being in the mid-west. The place where this asshole is supposed to be governing ..


As a former resident of Wisconsin who moved out because of Walker and his shitbird followers: Fuck Scott Walker. Fuck FoxConn (who they will try to blame on Evers). Fuck fucking over teachers. Fuck bending over backwards for the Koch Brothers. And Fuck Scott Walker once more. Seriously. Fuck Scott Walker. I hope he dies in a plane crash.



virus21 said:


> Walker got voted out last election


Thank God.


----------



## DesolationRow

Extraordinarily critical video for understanding how the paramount strata of the financial sector will operate going forward.

2008 was too devastatingly transparent. Time to cut out the "middle man"--governmental servants on behalf of the banking elite--out of the equation so as to not risk experiencing the wrath of the plebeians, in whatever forms said wrath may hypothetically take.


----------



## CamillePunk

Ah yes, our central banking system pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the market, a staple of a free market capitalist economy. 8*D


----------



## DesolationRow

Beto O'Rourke's sanctimonious apology tour for being a white male in the 2019 version of the U.S.--er, presidential campaign--is mercifully over. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

DesolationRow said:


> Beto O'Rourke's sanctimonious apology tour for being a white male in the 2019 version of the U.S.--er, presidential campaign--is mercifully over. :lol


I'm sure for Beto that it will be a Never Ending Tour.  We'll just hear less about it, thankfully. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189999858565955590
There was no smear campaign. :lol She had inappropriate relationships with staffers with incontrovertible photographic evidence of her brushing one of her female staffer's hair while completely nude. Can't do that. She gone. Ilhan full of shit as usual.


----------



## virus21

> ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – Images of heavily bearded men stepping on the corpse of a female Kurdish fighter in northern Syria shocked the world this week – the latest damning evidence of Turkish-backed Syrian militias committing war crimes in Operation Peace Spring.
> 
> Among the bodies shown in footage posted on social media was a woman, who the militiamen describe as “one of the whores” of the Kurdish forces.
> 
> The woman was today identified as Aziza Jalal (nom de guerre Amara Renas), a member of the Kurdish women’s armed unit (YPJ), which is part of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). She was killed in Jalabiyya village in the countryside near Kobane on October 21, according to SDF-affiliated Hawar news.
> 
> Her age was not published.
> 
> In the video of the atrocity, the forces identify themselves the “Mujahideen of Faylaq al-Majd” and repeatedly shout “Allah wa Akbar,” meaning God is great.
> 
> On October 12, Hevrin Khalaf, a senior politician and a women’s rights activist in northern Syria, was summarily executed and her corpse abused by another group of Turkish-backed forces, the Ahrar al-Sharqiya. The United Nations said her execution could count as a war crime.
> 
> Officials from the United States, which withdrew American forces from the Syria-Turkey border allowing Ankara to launch its operation, has also acknowledged the reports and said they could amount to war crimes.
> 
> On Wednesday, US special envoy to Syria James Jeffrey told a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the Syrian militias had committed “war crimes” and should be held accountable.
> 
> US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour aired Tuesday, admitted Turkish-backed militias may be committing “war crimes” and that the Turkish government should be held responsible.
> 
> “I've seen the reports as well. We’re trying to monitor them. They are horrible and, if accurate, I assume that they are accurate, they would be war crimes, as best as I know the law of land warfare. So I think all of those needs to be followed up on. I think those responsible should be held accountable – in many cases it would be the government of Turkey should be held accountable for this because we cannot allow those things to happen,” Esper said.
> 
> Turkey launched its land incursion into northern Syria on October 9. At least 300,000 people have been displaced from their homes and scores of civilians killed in the operation. The United States and Russia have struck ceasefire agreements with Turkey that dictate the SDF will withdraw from the border. The SDF was not a party to the talks and on Thursday accused Turkey of violating the truce by launching a large ground attack.
> 
> The European Parliament condemned Turkey’s offensive and called for Ankara to pull its forces out of Syria. The lawmakers “warn that Turkey’s intervention in northeast Syria is a grave violation of international law, undermining the stability and security of the region as a whole,” read a statement from the parliament.
> 
> Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan dismissed the criticism in a televised address from Ankara on Thursday, saying Turkey is fighting an international war against terrorism.
> 
> Accusing European powers of “attacking” Turkey, he said “we have resisted and will continue resisting”.


https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/241020192


----------



## CamillePunk

> Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan dismissed the criticism in a televised address from Ankara on Thursday, saying Turkey is fighting an international war against terrorism.


Turkey following the U.S playbook. :bjpenn


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> I'm sure for Beto that it will be a Never Ending Tour.  We'll just hear less about it, thankfully. :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189999858565955590
> There was no smear campaign. :lol She had inappropriate relationships with staffers with incontrovertible photographic evidence of her brushing one of her female staffer's hair while completely nude. Can't do that. She gone. Ilhan full of shit as usual.


2019: The year when questionable actions and facts pertaining to your character is nothing more than smear campaigns. :laugh:

It goes to show you that politics and politicians never change, even if their race and gender do. :x


----------



## yeahbaby!

Great work pulling those troops out Donald.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1190853658252054529
Most journalists today are sycophantic scumbags. Late night talk show "comedians" too.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1191024538752081921


----------



## CamillePunk

https://reason.com/2019/10/30/calif...ates-wildfires-deadlier-and-more-destructive/

https://reason.com/2019/10/22/gavin...vestigation-into-why-ca-gas-costs-4-a-gallon/

California Democrats blame everything but themselves for our state's current woes, which includes paying more than $4 a gallon for gas and being under constant threat of fires. They're in no risk of losing power because they've artificially tipped the scales by allowing and aiding unfettered immigration from Central and South America. The future of the state couldn't be more bleak.


----------



## ShiningStar

Tale as old as time: medieval guilds restricted access and vigorously defended the economic self-interest of their members. Property-owning and credentialed elites do exactly the same thing today. It's illegal to build an apt in 80% of SF.Los Angeles and San Diego also use Nimby Zoning shit to keep the supply of housing low. Even if you had a reasonable solution to immigration flow and gas prices no one but the top 5% or people or bottom % on section 8 can afford to live in these cities anymore creating a Prince and Pauper class with a lot of worker's having to live out of the city and commuting 5-10 hours a week for even low wage jobs.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/992146837162397708


----------



## virus21

> ABC News anchor Amy Robach was caught on a hot mic claiming higher-ups at her network killed a story that would have exposed the now-deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein three years ago, but the Disney-owned news organization says it wasn't up to their standards.
> 
> “I’ve had the story for three years… we would not put it on the air,” Robach said on the hot mic. “It was unbelievable what we had, Clinton, we had everything.”
> 
> Project Veritas, whose controversial founder, James O'Keefe, describes himself as a “guerrilla journalist,” published the footage that included Robach saying ABC refused to air an interview she conducted with one of Epstein’s victims.
> 
> EXCLUSIVE: EPSTEIN'S BODY MORE CONSISTENT WITH HOMICIDAL STRANGULATION THAN SUICIDE
> 
> Robach quickly admitted the authenticity of the video, which has not been independently verified by Fox News, but dismissed the notion of unethical journalism.
> 
> “As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with [Epstein accuser] Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations,” Robach said in a statement provided to Fox News.
> 
> ABC News anchor Amy Robach admitted on hot mic footage published by the controversial Project Veritas that she had the Jeffrey Epstein story three years ago.
> ABC News anchor Amy Robach admitted on hot mic footage published by the controversial Project Veritas that she had the Jeffrey Epstein story three years ago.
> The hot mic outburst was published by Project Veritas, which said that the tape was leaked by an ABC News insider.
> 
> PROJECT VERITAS’ ALLEGED CNN WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS NETWORK IS ‘PUMPING OUT PROPAGANDA'
> 
> “We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told, who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story," Robach said on the video recording. "Then, the Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will that we, that also quashed the story.”
> 
> Robach also said that Roberts had photos and statements from attorneys to back up her claims.
> 
> “I tried for three years to get it on to no avail. And now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new revelations and I freaking had all of it,” Robach said. “I’m so pissed right now.”
> 
> ABC News downplayed the significance of the video, telling Fox News that the Epstein story wasn’t fit to air.
> 
> NEW YORK MEDICAL EXAMINER: JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S DEATH WAS A SUICIDE BY HANGING
> 
> “At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story. Ever since, we’ve had a team on this investigation and substantial resources dedicated to it," an ABC News spokesperson told Fox News. "That work has led to a two-hour documentary and 6-part podcast that will air in the new year.”
> 
> Robach was also heard saying, “There will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known. I had it all, three years ago.”
> 
> 
> Robach's diatribe was allegedly recorded in late August, days after NPR criticized the mainstream media, including ABC, for sitting on Epstein news.
> 
> “My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private island were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015,” Robach said. “I was referencing her allegations -- not what ABC News had verified through our reporting. The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards. In the years since no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”
> 
> Epstein was found dead this past August in his Manhattan prison cell while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.
> 
> CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
> 
> Robach also said on the video that she “100 percent” thinks Epstein was actually murdered.
> 
> “He made his whole living blackmailing people. There was a lot of men in those planes, a lot of men who visited that island, lot of powerful men who came into that apartment,” she said. "I knew immediately."
> 
> Famed forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden exclusively told Fox News last week that Epstein's body bore telltale signs of homicide despite an official ruling that he killed himself.
> 
> Prosecutors alleged that the previously convicted sex offender paid girls as young as 14 hundreds of dollars for massages before he molested them in his homes in New York and Palm Beach, Fla., between 2002 and 2005.
> 
> Project Veritas, which frames itself as a conservative whistleblower watchdog group, has previously released what it claims to be hidden camera footage of network news producers, federal politicians, and members of private political organizations making statements while unaware they were being recorded.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-amy-robach-jeffrey-epstein-hot-mic


----------



## virus21

> Elizabeth Warren is proving to be an equal opportunist when it comes to taking on social media companies.
> 
> On Tuesday, Sen. Warren, who’s running for president, slammed Twitter’s new ad policy that bans political ads. In a series of tweets on Tuesday, the Massachusetts Democrat attacked the company for blocking organizations that are fighting climate change from running ads on the social network while allowing ads from companies like Exxon on the same topic.
> 
> Her criticism comes a week after Twitter said it would no longer allow political ads on its service, a policy that blocks ads from politicians, ads that refer to an election or candidate or ads related to politically-sensitive issues.
> 
> 
> Elizabeth Warren
> ✔
> @ewarren
> Twitter's new ad policy will allow fossil fuel companies to buy ads defending themselves and spreading misleading info—but won't allow organizations fighting the climate crisis to buy ads holding those companies accountable. We need accountability. https://twitter.com/emorwee/status/1191687399547518977 …
> 
> Emily Atkin
> ✔
> @emorwee
> Under Twitter’s new ad rules, environmental groups can’t pay to spread pro-climate policy messages.
> 
> But Exxon can pay to spread tweets claiming a widespread political conspiracy against it, and touting its pro-climate credentials https://heated.world/p/exxon-climate-ads-arent-political …
> 
> 8,540
> 2:29 PM - Nov 5, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 2,986 people are talking about this
> 
> Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey responded to Warren with a tweet on Tuesday, saying that the company will announce the specifics of its new ad policies on Nov. 15.
> 
> 
> Elizabeth Warren
> ✔
> @ewarren
> · 17h
> Twitter's new ad policy will allow fossil fuel companies to buy ads defending themselves and spreading misleading info—but won't allow organizations fighting the climate crisis to buy ads holding those companies accountable. We need accountability. https://twitter.com/emorwee/status/1191687399547518977 …
> 
> Emily Atkin
> ✔
> @emorwee
> Under Twitter’s new ad rules, environmental groups can’t pay to spread pro-climate policy messages.
> 
> But Exxon can pay to spread tweets claiming a widespread political conspiracy against it, and touting its pro-climate credentials https://heated.world/p/exxon-climate-ads-arent-political …
> 
> 
> jack ???
> ✔
> @jack
> We haven’t announced our new rules yet. They come out 11/15. Taking all this into consideration.
> 
> 909
> 2:33 PM - Nov 5, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 215 people are talking about this
> 
> Warren has been on a crusade against Big Tech throughout her presidential campaign. In March, she proposed the breakup of companies like Facebook and Amazon, and last month she criticized Facebook for its own political ad policies, which allow candidates to run ads that include false information.
> 
> Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has defended his company’s political ads policy, saying in a speech at Georgetown University that “banning political ads favors incumbents and whoever the media covers.” Separately, he told Facebook employees that he would “go to the mat” and fight against anyone trying to break up the company, according to leaked audio that was published by The Verge.
> 
> This was Warren’s first time to publicly go after Twitter’s stance on political ads.
> 
> 
> Elizabeth Warren
> ✔
> @ewarren
> · 17h
> Twitter's new ad policy will allow fossil fuel companies to buy ads defending themselves and spreading misleading info—but won't allow organizations fighting the climate crisis to buy ads holding those companies accountable. We need accountability. https://twitter.com/emorwee/status/1191687399547518977 …
> 
> Emily Atkin
> ✔
> @emorwee
> Under Twitter’s new ad rules, environmental groups can’t pay to spread pro-climate policy messages.
> 
> But Exxon can pay to spread tweets claiming a widespread political conspiracy against it, and touting its pro-climate credentials https://heated.world/p/exxon-climate-ads-arent-political …
> 
> 
> Elizabeth Warren
> ✔
> @ewarren
> It turns out if you're a giant corporation with millions to spend misleading people on your record of accelerating the climate crisis, that's exactly what you can—and probably will—do. https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634371407380480 …
> 
> jack ???
> ✔
> @jack
> Replying to @jack
> For instance, it‘s not credible for us to say: “We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well...they can say whatever they want! ?”
> 
> 1,463
> 2:29 PM - Nov 5, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 386 people are talking about this
> 
> Part of Twitter’s policy bans “ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance (such as: climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, taxes),” according to a tweet from Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s lead for legal, public policy and trust and safety lead.
> 
> 
> Will Oremus
> ✔
> @WillOremus
> · Oct 30, 2019
> How does Twitter decide what constitutes an issue ad? https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634372334280704 …
> 
> jack ???
> ✔
> @jack
> Replying to @jack
> We considered stopping only candidate ads, but issue ads present a way to circumvent. Additionally, it isn’t fair for everyone but candidates to buy ads for issues they want to push. So we're stopping these too.
> 
> 
> Vijaya Gadde
> ✔
> @vijaya
> hi - here's our current definition:
> 1/ Ads that refer to an election or a candidate, or
> 2/ Ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance (such as: climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, taxes)
> 
> 653
> 4:04 PM - Oct 30, 2019
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> 383 people are talking about this


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/elizabeth-warren-slams-twitter-for-ban-on-ads-tied-to-climate-change.html












> Millennials are facing a shortfall compared to other generations when it comes to their paychecks.
> 
> Overall, millennials earn 20% less than baby boomers did at the same stage of life, according to “The Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap,” a recent report from the nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank New America. Specifically, median earnings for those 18 to 34 are lower than they were in the 1980s, a disparity that was first noted in a 2017 report from the non-profit Young Invincibles. And the flow of today’s paychecks is less predictable due, in part, to the effects of the Great Recession and a rise in contract and freelance positions that may be less consistent in hours and pay.
> 
> That’s in spite of overall higher education levels. Nearly 40% of millennials 25 to 37 have at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to just a quarter of baby boomers and 30% of Gen X when they were the same age, Pew Research Center found.
> 
> These lower wages may lead to long-term problems for this generation, experts say.
> 
> Lower pay slowing long-term wealth
> Lower income levels are already having a long term impact on millennials’ ability to accumulate wealth, either through savings or home equity. “Millennials are going to be on a completely lower trajectory than previous generations,” says Reid Cramer, director of the Millennials Initiative at New America.
> 
> The generational wealth gap has reached “historic proportions,” Cramer says. The average millennial’s wealth in 2016 (ages 23 to 38) was 41% less than those who were at a similar age in 1989, the report says.
> 
> It’s also true among young families. Households headed by someone under 35 in 2016 had an average net worth of $10,900, which is $8,000 less than it was in 1995.
> 
> Part of that can be attributed to the Great Recession and its aftereffects. Those who entered the workforce following the recession had fewer job opportunities and lower wages, starting them off at a disadvantage. At the same time, many faced higher college tuition costs, leading to higher student loan and personal debt rates, the report finds.
> 
> The recovery was not experienced by everyone, either. “Even as the economy steadily added back jobs lost, the protracted recovery was experienced unevenly, with well-off households doing better at the expense of others,” Cramer writes.
> 
> In 2016, the top 10% of the country’s highest income earners received half of the total income generated in the U.S. That’s up dramatically from the same segment of households receiving just 38% of the country’s total income in 1992.
> 
> 
> 
> Millennials held an average of $162,000 of assets compared to Gen X’s average of $198,000 at the same age, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve.
> 
> Multi-generational fallout
> These income and wealth challenges have transcended into other trends for millennials, specifically with fewer in this generation getting married, buying homes and starting families, or experiencing delays in these life milestones. For example, marriage rates among millennials are estimated to drop by 70% and a record number will remain unmarried by age 40, according to the Urban Institute.
> 
> 6:13
> How a 28-year-old homeowner making $80,000 in DC spends her money
> “Income is stagnant, relative to the past, it’s been more volatile relative to the past — that combination leads people to have a lot less and be really suspect about making commitments to the future,” Cramer says.
> 
> That may effect millennials’ ability to retire comfortably and pass on wealth, since homeownership, in particular, is still one of the most secure ways to build wealth and one of Americans’ biggest chunks of equity. “There’s just less available to do everything else with, including build wealth and save,” Cramer says.
> 
> This has potential fallout not only for millennials, but also for future generations, says Liz Hipple, senior policy advisor at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.
> 
> “It means there’s less financial resources for investment in tomorrow’s generation,” she says. If millennial families have less money to spend on their children’s health and education, then it may have negative implications for those children’s earning potential.
> 
> “It matters for our kids and their outcomes,” Hipple says.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/millennials-earn-20-percent-less-than-boomersdespite-being-better-educated.html


----------



## virus21

> A New York tech company made millions by selling Chinese-made equipment to the U.S. military that it falsely claimed were built in the U.S., the Justice Department charged Thursday.
> 
> The scheme carried out by Aventura Technologies exposed the federal government and multiple military branches, including the Army, Navy and Air Force, to serious cybersecurity risks and created a channel through which "hostile foreign governments could have accessed some of the government's most sensitive facilities," according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York.
> 
> Federal prosecutors charged seven current and former Aventura employees in the plot. The charges were announced hours after federal agents raided the headquarters of the Long Island based surveillance and security equipment company.
> 
> "Greed is at the heart of this scheme, a reprehensible motive when the subjects in this case allegedly put into question the security of men and women who don uniforms each day to protect our nation,” FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William Sweeney said in a statement.
> 
> 
> U.S. company to be charged with fraud for selling surveillance equipment made in China
> NOV. 7, 201901:52
> New York prosecutors say Aventura generated upwards of $88 million since 2006, including over $20 million in federal government contracts, by selling equipment it claimed was built at its headquarters. In actuality, the company produced nothing on its premises and instead imported products primarily from China and then resold them as American made, court papers say.
> 
> The equipment made in China and sold by Aventura has been installed on dozens of Army, Navy and Air Force bases, Department of Energy facilities and other places including Navy aircraft carriers, court papers say.
> 
> The products include a $13,500 laser-enhanced night vision camera ordered by the U.S. Navy and 25 body cameras purchased by the U.S. Air Force, prosecutors said.
> 
> The plot's alleged mastermind, Jack Cabasso, went to extraordinary lengths to conceal the multi-million dollar scheme with the help of his Chinese business partners, prosecutors said.
> 
> Cabasso exchanged multiple emails with his colleagues and Chinese partners stressing the importance of procuring products that gave no indication of their true provenance. In November 2018, Cabasso wrote to an employee of a Chinese manufacturer of surveillance equipment, emphasizing the need to take steps so "they cannot trace" the product to the company.
> 
> "The biggest problem," Cabasso said in a subsequent communication, according to court papers, was that the Chinese manufacturer's initials were marked on its circuit boards — an issue that Cabasso said had cost him several potential customers in the past.
> 
> The Chinese employee responded that the company's initials would be removed from all circuit boards shipped to Aventura, prosecutors said.
> 
> Jack Cabasso, his wife Frances Cabasso, and two other defendants, Jonathan Lasker and Christine Lazarus, were also accused of falsely representing that the company was run by Frances. The bogus claim allowed Aventura to secure government contracts that were set aside for women-owned small businesses, prosecutors say.
> 
> The other three defendants were identified as Wayne Marino, Eduard Matulik and Alan Schwartz.
> 
> Image: Clockwise, from top left: Jonathan Lasker; Frances Cabasso; Alan Schwartz and Eduard Matulik.Clockwise, from top left: Jonathan Lasker; Frances Cabasso; Alan Schwartz and Eduard Matulik.NBC New York
> All seven were charged with unlawful importation and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. The Cabassos were also charged with money laundering conspiracy for allegedly siphoning Aventura's illegal profits out of the company through a network of shell companies.
> 
> "As alleged, the defendants falsely claimed for years that their surveillance and security equipment was manufactured on Long Island, padding their pockets with money from lucrative contracts without regard for the risk to our country’s national security posed by secretly peddling made-in-China electronics with known cyber vulnerabilities," said U.S. Attorney Richard Donoghue.
> 
> Jack Cabasso has a lengthy criminal history which includes convictions for wire fraud, grand larceny, mail fraud and conspiring to influence a juror, according to court papers.
> 
> The latest charges come amid ongoing concerns about Chinese economic espionage and theft of trade secrets. The Justice Department has brought several cases over the past few years involving allegations of Chinese spycraft.
> 
> The raid on Long Island involved dozens of investigators seen hauling away containers of equipment around 9 a.m. Trucks and other law enforcement vehicles could be seen as the search continued at Aventura, located in Commack.
> 
> A call to the company for comment was not immediately returned. Lawyers for the defendants could not immediately be reached.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-new-york-tech-firm-suspected-selling-chinese-equipment-n1078191?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR33xa80ypSU9AJl0NVbDd0EDxta1M1VEIRuxR54j18iAvoYK8gfvgoyC_A


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192578784366649346
:deandre

Bizarre victim-blaming from the definitely-real-news New York Times and their contemporaries.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/992146837162397708


Lol, oh a whole 19%? Journalism isn't one of those careers that's disproportionately male, that number should be closer to 50%, we gotta start killing more women journalists. Seriously though, even though no journalists should ever be killed, presenting a number like that makes it seem like this is a women's issue but who's advocating for the other 81% of journalists that are being killed? 

I'm starting to see why straight, white men think they're the most oppressed group, they aren't, but I could see why they think that.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192526820559785986
The backbone of our democracy. :heston


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192526820559785986
> The backbone of our democracy. :heston


Go for the Identity politics. Worked for Clinton. And by that I mean not at all.

And backbone of our democracy???? The hell?


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1190853658252054529
> Most journalists today are sycophantic scumbags. Late night talk show "comedians" too.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1191024538752081921


Well, they're the ones who are part of Hollywood's morality facade. They couldn't give a rats ass about people but pretending you do makes money.



virus21 said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-new-york-tech-firm-suspected-selling-chinese-equipment-n1078191?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR33xa80ypSU9AJl0NVbDd0EDxta1M1VEIRuxR54j18iAvoYK8gfvgoyC_A


Pretty sure China has been doing this kind of crap for years, people have mentioned the dangers over and over again. Google works closely with China, hires Chinese workers and still the US Government contracts Google to do stuff. We're entering Eastern Roman Empire levels of corruption.



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192578784366649346
> :deandre
> 
> Bizarre victim-blaming from the definitely-real-news New York Times and their contemporaries.


They've done it before. The American MSM doesn't report on or outright ignores Cartel violence and linked corruption. Mexican Journalists, Politicians and Police have been killed telling the truth about the Cartel and American journalists are like "lalalala nothings happening!".


----------



## Draykorinee

Backbone of our democracy :maury

At best they're the gallbladder, kinda useful but you can live without it.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192485747170787328
Don Jr firebombing that den of hyenas. :banderas


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

The government already gets trillions (and is over $21 trillion in debt, and much much more than that in unfunded liabilities) and the homelessness problem is worse than ever. Taking 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates wouldn't change that. Bernie is suckering people who believe that the government is an efficient and effective problem solver. It sure ain't that.

Not to mention that much of our homelessness problem is driven by zoning laws and housing regulations that artificially inflate the cost of housing in the first place. :lol Taking more of your money to "solve" problems they created is typical government.


----------



## MrMister

Kanye West is hilarious.

He's trolling about running for president in 2024 (though he might you never know with this guy).

But this quote...



> “When people say it’s crass to call yourself a billionaire, I say I might legally change my name to Christian Genius Billionaire Kanye West for a year until y’all understand exactly what it is,” he said. “It will be on the license plate.”


:heston :heston


----------



## CamillePunk

I think he's serious, I don't think or want him to go through with it though. 

I think Don Jr running in 2024 is a nailed-on guarantee.


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> The government already gets trillions (and is over $21 trillion in debt, and much much more than that in unfunded liabilities) and the homelessness problem is worse than ever. Taking 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates wouldn't change that. Bernie is suckering people who believe that the government is an efficient and effective problem solver. It sure ain't that.
> 
> Not to mention that much of our homelessness problem is driven by zoning laws and housing regulations that artificially inflate the cost of housing in the first place. :lol Taking more of your money to "solve" problems they created is typical government.


The Bill Gates of the world have used their money to eliminate competition,create monopolies and shift the tax burden more to the middle class and poor. Bernie's first instinct/magic wand won't fix a lot of problems with the economy but Trump,Obama etc. kissing the ring and ignoring the problems in society are worse.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> The government already gets trillions (and is over $21 trillion in debt, and much much more than that in unfunded liabilities) and the homelessness problem is worse than ever. Taking 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates wouldn't change that. Bernie is suckering people who believe that the government is an efficient and effective problem solver. It sure ain't that.
> 
> Not to mention that much of our homelessness problem is driven by zoning laws and housing regulations that artificially inflate the cost of housing in the first place. :lol Taking more of your money to "solve" problems they created is typical government.


I agree that the Rich don't pay enough and that Hollywood elites should be taxed out the bum, yet the Government is completely inept at spending tax dollars. The war on poverty is a failure, tossing money at education is a failure, the endless welfare gibs is a failure. The Government is garbage at handling even the most basic tasks.

We have corrupt Politicians, rich pedos and massive human trafficking going on and the Government cannot even stop the obvious. A bunch of dorks on a meme site have logged patterns of human trafficking, abduction and potential pedo rings which shows people being trafficked out of the Southern Border and yet our billions of dollars of Law Enforcement has netted us one pedo ring leader who "killed himself". What a fucking joke.


https://twitter.com/latimes/status/...-angeles-times-mexico-cartel-massacre-victims

So L.A Time, NYT, I believe WaPO and a few others have been blasted for victim blaming headlines, even the articles read as victim blaming lite. Those Americans had it coming!

Before we get that one person who defends the American MSM nonstop or waves the Cartel problem away, here's some food for thought.. The Cartel soldiers set those children on fire. They're "Not special" so I know that doesn't mean much to some around these parts but there's plenty of footage of Cartels out there of their various tortures. Such as letting dogs munch on live victims, burning people alive, skinning and cutting out organs of live victims etc. 

In fact the Cartels have killed many journalists, politicians and police for speaking out against them. This also includes anti-violence activists with no political leaning. Not only have they killed these people but many times their families as well. Yet oddly enough our MSM seems oddly silent on these very public activities.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://wtop.com/local/2019/11/transl...ected-to-plea/ :lmao Perhaps the quintessential 2019 U.S. empire story.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> http://wtop.com/local/2019/11/transl...ected-to-plea/ :lmao Perhaps the quintessential 2019 U.S. empire story.


Link is broken, at least for me!


----------



## DesolationRow

Miss Sally said:


> Link is broken, at least for me!


Oh, apologies. 



> FBI translator whose own voice was intercepted pleads guilty
> 
> The Associated Press
> 
> November 8, 2019, 2:45 PM
> 
> ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A former FBI translator charged with altering transcripts after his own voice was caught on intercepts with terrorism suspects has pleaded guilty to making false statements.
> 
> Abdirizak Wehelie (wuh-HEEL’-ee) of Burke, Virginia, struck a plea bargain Friday in federal court in Alexandria. Wehelie pleaded guilty to a single count of making false statements; seven other counts, including obstructing an investigation, were dropped.
> 
> In court papers, prosecutors say Wehelie was tasked with translating phone calls made by an individual under investigation for helping a person join al-Shabab, a militant Somali group designated as terrorists by the U.S. When Wehelie heard his own voice on the calls, he marked himself down as “unidentified male.”
> 
> Prosecutors say they have no evidence Wehelie tipped off the person calling him to the FBI’s investigation.
> 
> Copyright © 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.


Theodore Roosevelt's concerns over the U.S. becoming a "tangle of squabbling nationalities" a century ago with hyphenated Irish- and Italian-Americans are impossibly, charmingly quaint. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> Oh, apologies.
> 
> 
> 
> Theodore Roosevelt's concerns over the U.S. becoming a "tangle of squabbling nationalities" a century ago with hyphenated Irish- and Italian-Americans are impossibly, charmingly quaint. :lol


Doesn't surprise me, the FBI is inept at doing anything. It's completely sundered when it comes to doing it's tasks, too many people are playing at politics within it. 

Eventually the US will balakanize.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Eventually the US will balakanize.


We're already heading there. The midwest and south hate the coasts and vice versa, Texas seems to want to be on its own and Im sure, so does Utah.


----------



## DesolationRow

Watching Joe Biden's campaign is fascinating considering just how much it is critical for someone--whether in the U.S. or Ukraine--to truly thoroughly investigate Biden's wanton exercises in corruption. As proconsul for Ukraine during the Barack Obama administration's reign Biden authorized the transfer of three billion dollars in taxpayers' money to the utterly crooked and unscrupulous government following the February 2014 coup (which was undertaken to a large extent through the auspices of the U.S.'s CIA following the November 2013 spurning of the European Union by the largely neutralist Ukrainian government of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich) to the post-coup government. The money was pocketed, with Biden able to have it laundered and bringing a considerable percentage of the bundle himself. With Ukrainian midsize depots of natural gas and production from same rather low. The average Ukrainian was able to pay pennies for their gas, but once the coup was successful the International Monetary Fund was able to dictate that gas prices be increased to more closely correlate with the standard European range. Almost overnight the prices ballooned dramatically, with myriad gas conglomerates able to bring in more money than they had ever known before. President Petro Poroshenko informed the heads of disparate gas companies that as the chief party responsible for the price increase he should be treated as a full partner; when Joe Biden's son Hunter and John Kerry were drawn into the matter as a way to keep Poroshenko in line with U.S.-backing by Burisma Gas founder Nicolas Zlochevsky, the Bidens and Kerry saw a stupendous financial opportunity for themselves. When Poroshenko saw what Zlochevsky was doing in pitting Westerners against him in the respective schemes to plunder the gas company following the price increases he had his attorney general Viktor Shokin probe Burisma Gas. When Joe Biden spoke with Poroshenko and threatened him with the six-hour ultimatum to close the case he kept one billion U.S. dollars as that which Poroshenko would have to do without if the Ukrainian regime did not comply. Biden was paid somewhere between three and 10 million dollars by Zlochevsky for running interference on behalf of Burisma against Poroshenko. When Shokin told Poroshenko that there was no conceivable way to wrap up his investigation in six hours his boss fired him. 

This is only the outermost layer of the sewage pile based on what is now being reported concerning the findings of Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios, beginning with weapons being sent to Islamic jihadist fighters aligned with al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria from Ukraine with the U.S. clandestinely behind same. Much of Biden's own dirty laundry has been exposed by his big silly mouth, not surprisingly.


----------



## Reaper

Another son of yet another welfare queen grows up to claim that everyone else shouldn't get help while he sucked up the welfare of others. 










The private school did a good job of brainwashing him into becoming an elitest tho. That's kind of what private schools do because they depend on hoarding resources within their own cliques.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://apnews.com/430bf7e182cd480886e2beeee9f8f84f



> Shootings, blasts prompt Denmark to tighten border controls
> 
> By JAN M. OLSEN
> 
> yesterday
> 
> COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Denmark will temporarily reinstate border controls with Sweden and step up police work along the border after a series of violent crimes and explosions around Copenhagen that Danish authorities say were carried out by perpetrators from Sweden.
> 
> The checks, which start Tuesday for six months, will take place at the Oresund Bridge between Copenhagen and the Swedish city of Malmo, and at ferry ports.
> 
> Lene Frank of Denmark’s National Police said there will be both random and periodic checks of people crossing the border and officers will focus “particularly on cross-border crime involving explosives, weapons and drugs.”
> 
> Since February, there have been 13 blasts in Copenhagen. Authorities believe an Aug. 6 explosion at the Danish Tax Agency “was committed by criminals that had crossed the border from Sweden.” Two Swedish citizens are in custody.
> 
> Denmark Justice Minister Nick Haekkerup has called a June 25 double murder — where two Swedish citizens were gunned down in suburban Copenhagen — “a showdown between feuding gangs from Sweden.”
> 
> On Saturday, one 15-year-old boy was shot dead and another 15-year-old was critically wounded in Malmo, Sweden’s third-largest city, which lies just across the water from Copenhagen.
> 
> The boys “were well-known to the police despite their young age,” senior police officer Stefan Sinteus told a news conference Monday. “It was a somber weekend.”
> 
> The shooting took place just minutes after an explosion in another Malmo district where a bomb set under a car detonated, destroying the vehicle and damaging other cars. Police said Monday that the blast could have been a diversion from the killing.
> 
> No one has been arrested in the Malmo shootings.
> 
> Police in Malmo — a Swedish city also hit by explosions and shootings between feuding gangs — will get extra officers to cope with the violence, said Carina Persson, the southern Sweden regional police chief.
> 
> “We have a serious situation,” Prime Minister Stefan Lofven told the Swedish news agency TT. “The inhabitants of Sweden should feel safe, whether they are on the streets and squares, at home in their residential area or wherever they are.”
> 
> Haekkerup said last month that the blast at the headquarters of the Danish Tax Agency and the twin murders in suburban Copenhagen were “examples of the serious crime that can flow over the border from Sweden. We will not accept that.”
> 
> He said the temporary border controls should protect Denmark against both “foreigners who do not live up to the entrance criteria and foreigners who may intend to commit serious organizes crime or terror in Denmark.”
> 
> Along with the border checks, authorities plan to have more CCTV surveillance, more surveillance of gang members, more drones and more bomb-sniffing dogs, Haekkerup said.


----------



## CamillePunk

^ Those dang Swedes and their notorious bombings and murdering gangs. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1194093753792913408
:heston


----------



## MrMister

Is Hillary really going to fuck this up again? I read she's considering etc. Of course she is. 



Hillary Clinton said:


> *many many many people etc*


Trump still in her head after all these years.


----------



## CamillePunk

Please run, Hill-dog!


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.mediaite.com/election-20...russia-comments-your-statement-is-defamatory/

TULSI GABBARD THE NEW QUEEN IN THE NORTH.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reaper said:


> Another son of yet another welfare queen grows up to claim that everyone else shouldn't get help while he sucked up the welfare of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The private school did a good job of brainwashing him into becoming an elitest tho. That's kind of what private schools do because they depend on hoarding resources within their own cliques.


A small amount of research, while not conclusive, suggests that "Foundation Scholarships" provided by institutions that are members of the Independent Schools Council, which includes Reading Blue Coat School, are not funded by taxpayer monies. Rather, such scholarships are funded by the institutions themselves from tuition fees, or from trusts established for such purpose by former students, philanthropists, etc. 

Laziness does not make bitter, resentful demagoguery any more persuasive

The apparent confusion regarding the matter, wherein private scholarships and the abolishing by law of tuition fees are held to be the same thing, is the logic of a petulant child


----------



## Jayden77

Fresh Thyme Farmers Market continuously strive to improve the way their communities eat by offering healthy and fresh food at reasonable prices. Therefore they started a feedback portal called Tell FTFM.
http://surveysreview.info/


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/how-america-ends/600757/

As Yoni Applebaum notes,


> The United States is undergoing a transition perhaps no rich and stable democracy has ever experienced: Its historically dominant group is on its way to becoming a political minority.


"It would be inappropriate for you to complain about losing the once-five-on-five basketball game we agreed to play even if it just so happens that one side keeps having new players added to its group as the game continues as in California, New Mexico and Virginia, and now Arizona, Georgia and Texas among others, thereby annihilating your ability to win. Just keep trying the John McCain or Mitt Romney way of winning the immigrant vote, 'kay? Surely this message is shared with you with your best interests in mind." Of course it is, Mr. Applebaum. :lol


----------



## ShiningStar

DesolationRow said:


> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/how-america-ends/600757/
> 
> As Yoni Applebaum notes,
> 
> "It would be inappropriate for you to complain about losing the once-five-on-five basketball game we agreed to play even if it just so happens that one side keeps having new players added to its group as the game continues as in California, New Mexico and Virginia, and now Arizona, Georgia and Texas among others, thereby annihilating your ability to win. Just keep trying the John McCain or Mitt Romney way of winning the immigrant vote, 'kay? Surely this message is shared with you with your best interests in mind." Of course it is, Mr. Applebaum. :lol



The Democrats who think "Demographic Destiny" will ensure them the popular vote forever,and the White Nationalists on the other side of the political coin like Laura Ingraham who think and fear the same Demographic change should open a history book. Also even if white's say become 49% of the Us population by 2050 or so it's not like the 51% who represent every other racial group will hold hands,shout Koombayah and work together like a Monolithic political block.


----------



## Reaper

ShiningStar said:


> every other racial group will hold hands,shout Koombayah and work together like a Monolithic political block.


They already do by voting corporate fascists like Hillary and the Democratic Party without ever considering who they're voting for as long as they're voting for the next person who tells them they care about them. No idea where you're getting this idea that minorities don't vote as a monolithic block when for the past several decades they've consistently voted democrat irrespective of the PoS they put into power. This doesn't change even in Canada where I KNOW the entire Brown community pretended to be outraged over Trudeua's blackface and then went out and voted for him instead of the Sikh running for the NDP. 

Almost all minorities love their racist white masters while claiming that they are anti-racists because they're programmed from childhood to believe in white saviorism themselves. It's really quite disgusting from my perspective as a brown man.

You can replace this with "Minority" and it still works:


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/how-america-ends/600757/
> 
> As Yoni Applebaum notes,
> 
> "It would be inappropriate for you to complain about losing the once-five-on-five basketball game we agreed to play even if it just so happens that one side keeps having new players added to its group as the game continues as in California, New Mexico and Virginia, and now Arizona, Georgia and Texas among others, thereby annihilating your ability to win. Just keep trying the John McCain or Mitt Romney way of winning the immigrant vote, 'kay? Surely this message is shared with you with your best interests in mind." Of course it is, Mr. Applebaum. :lol


Right now there is tension but nothing will happen. Democrats and "Progressives" will keep saying there is no Demographic changes nor "Replacement" yet somehow one group is continuing to become a minority, yes no changes indeed. I'd compare this to a man having his prostate checked, only to find both the Doctor's hands on his shoulders during. The man knows exactly what is happening but who is he to question the Doctor? 

I think people are starting to realize this as media, talking heads, Hollywood are doubling down on thought crime, anti-free speech and trying to make everything illegal. There's a reason why nations with demographic changes to come in the next 30-50 years are cracking down on what people say and view online. 




ShiningStar said:


> The Democrats who think "Demographic Destiny" will ensure them the popular vote forever,and the White Nationalists on the other side of the political coin like Laura Ingraham who think and fear the same Demographic change should open a history book. Also even if white's say become 49% of the Us population by 2050 or so it's not like the 51% who represent every other racial group will hold hands,shout Koombayah and work together like a Monolithic political block.


They do. The only way it will split is when Latino voters outnumber others in the area and start voting for majority Latin candidates. It will happen sooner than later but for now they all vote as a near monolith. Self interest only kicks in when you have the numbers. You don't have to look far back in History to see that.



Reaper said:


> They already do by voting corporate fascists like Hillary and the Democratic Party without ever considering who they're voting for as long as they're voting for the next person who tells them they care about them. No idea where you're getting this idea that minorities don't vote as a monolithic block when for the past several decades they've consistently voted democrat irrespective of the PoS they put into power. This doesn't change even in Canada where I KNOW the entire Brown community pretended to be outraged over Trudeua's blackface and then went out and voted for him instead of the Sikh running for the NDP.
> 
> Almost all minorities love their racist white masters while claiming that they are anti-racists because they're programmed from childhood to believe in white saviorism themselves. It's really quite disgusting from my perspective as a brown man.
> 
> You can replace this with "Minority" and it still works:


My Canadian friend thought that Trudeau would be done, told her he wouldn't. It's ironic as she always bragging about how non-racist Canada is, no shootings etc yadda yadda yet was shocked when the Canadian MSM went to bat for Trudeau and people voted for him still. A racist fucknut guised as a "Liberal" and they don't care. Just look at the responses from our own so called Left here or lack there of when Trudeau was exposed. :laugh:

Their white saviors and allies play them as fools. I'd like to believe most non-whites aren't as dumb as their saviors think they are but when they continue to vote for the same people propping up a corrupt system and doing everything in their power to rule over them.. It makes me wonder as I look at family and friends and question why they keep voting for the same people. 

The white saviors don't care about brown people, they just realized a homogeneous society is dangerous to the ruling class and it's far easier to rule over people who constantly fight among themselves and beg at the feet of the masters for scraps. Cheap labor, easily scared population, easily riled up people and vote against their own interests, what's not to love?


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Right now there is tension but nothing will happen. Democrats and "Progressives" will keep saying there is no Demographic changes nor "Replacement" yet somehow one group is continuing to become a minority, yes no changes indeed. I'd compare this to a man having his prostate checked, only to find both the Doctor's hands on his shoulders during. The man knows exactly what is happening but who is he to question the Doctor?
> 
> I think people are starting to realize this as media, talking heads, Hollywood are doubling down on thought crime, anti-free speech and trying to make everything illegal. There's a reason why nations with demographic changes to come in the next 30-50 years are cracking down on what people say and view online.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do. The only way it will split is when Latino voters outnumber others in the area and start voting for majority Latin candidates. It will happen sooner than later but for now they all vote as a near monolith. Self interest only kicks in when you have the numbers. You don't have to look far back in History to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> My Canadian friend thought that Trudeau would be done, told her he wouldn't. It's ironic as she always bragging about how non-racist Canada is, no shootings etc yadda yadda yet was shocked when the Canadian MSM went to bat for Trudeau and people voted for him still. A racist fucknut guised as a "Liberal" and they don't care. Just look at the responses from our own so called Left here or lack there of when Trudeau was exposed. :laugh:
> 
> Their white saviors and allies play them as fools. I'd like to believe most non-whites aren't as dumb as their saviors think they are but when they continue to vote for the same people propping up a corrupt system and doing everything in their power to rule over them.. It makes me wonder as I look at family and friends and question why they keep voting for the same people.
> 
> The white saviors don't care about brown people, they just realized a homogeneous society is dangerous to the ruling class and it's far easier to rule over people who constantly fight among themselves and beg at the feet of the masters for scraps. Cheap labor, easily scared population, easily riled up people and vote against their own interests, what's not to love?


Guess who the minorities are not supporting. 

Tulsi.

Cuz massa Hillary told em she's a bad person. That's all u need to know about how easy it is to fool minorities ... Who are majorly supporting Biden now. 

Biden.

The author of Jim Crow.

The dude that is responsible for the racist police state. 

But yah. 

Whatever. I sometimes think the same as you do when I listen to my idiot cousins and friends talk about racism and then they go out and vote racists. It makes literally no fucking sense to me. At least when racists vote racist that makes sense. But when blacks and browns vote and support white neoliberals who exist only yto maintain the status quo for their corporate masters I really question whether neoliberal voters even understand what they themselves believe in ...


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cenk2020 for Cali 25

Will be interesting to see how he does


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195174205496672257
:heston


----------



## Gh0stFace

Donald Rumsfeld is 100% reptilian. Just listen to the interview with Lous C.K. 100% proof.


----------



## Reaper

"Country of freedom"

My ass. This is one of the most draconian dystopias in the world right now.


----------



## ShiningStar

Reaper said:


> Guess who the minorities are not supporting.
> 
> Tulsi.
> 
> Cuz massa Hillary told em she's a bad person. That's all u need to know about how easy it is to fool minorities ... Who are majorly supporting Biden now.
> 
> Biden.
> 
> The author of Jim Crow.
> 
> The dude that is responsible for the racist police state.
> 
> But yah.
> 
> Whatever. I sometimes think the same as you do when I listen to my idiot cousins and friends talk about racism and then they go out and vote racists. It makes literally no fucking sense to me. At least when racists vote racist that makes sense. But when blacks and browns vote and support white neoliberals who exist only yto maintain the status quo for their corporate masters I really question whether neoliberal voters even understand what they themselves believe in ...


People are not supporting Tulsi the same reason they are not supporting Sestak,Cory Booker,Bullock or any of the other 87 candidates running. Outside of people in the online bubble the majority do not know who the hell she is.Has nothing to do with Hilary smearing her,on the contrary Tulsi is actually polling better now after Hilary called her a Russian asset and largely her feud with Hilary is the one thing that is gonna give her a puncher's chance to finish top 3 in NH if she can have a good debate in Dec.

And Biden's support is driven more by age then race or gender as he is polling in single digits in most states with voters under 45 but winning Boomer's Bigly.


----------



## Reaper

ShiningStar said:


> People are not supporting Tulsi the same reason they are not supporting Sestak,Cory Booker,Bullock or any of the other 87 candidates running. Outside of people in the online bubble the majority do not know who the hell she is.Has nothing to do with Hilary smearing her,on the contrary Tulsi is actually polling better now after Hilary called her a Russian asset and largely her feud with Hilary is the one thing that is gonna give her a puncher's chance to finish top 3 in NH if she can have a good debate in Dec.
> 
> And Biden's support is driven more by age then race or gender as he is polling in single digits in most states with voters under 45 but winning Boomer's Bigly.





> According to the poll, Biden also enjoys strong support among young minority voters. With support from 29 percent of Asian American millennials, 28 percent of African American millennials and 19 percent of millennial whites, the former Delaware senator led in all surveyed voting blocs — except millennial Latinos. Twenty-six percent of Hispanics between the ages of 18 and 34 said they support Sanders. Among that group, Biden came in second with 19 percent support.


Millennial latinos is the only minority group supporting Sanders as of now, but that will change once Obama's endorsement for Biden eventually comes. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6e2748-ff14-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html










I've also heard arguments that these polls are "fake" which is just conspiracy theory nonsense. 

When the time comes and Bernie loses to whatever PoS Democrat is propped up by the minorities more conspiracy theories will come this way. 

Make no mistake, minorities actually do support Biden. He STILL is benefiting from Obama's goodwill and since Biden and Obama are buddies and when Obama comes out to endorse his corporate shill buddy Biden then it's over for anyone else.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> Millennial latinos is the only minority group supporting Sanders as of now, but that will change once Obama's endorsement for Biden eventually comes.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6e2748-ff14-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've also heard arguments that these polls are "fake" which is just conspiracy theory nonsense.
> 
> When the time comes and Bernie loses to whatever PoS Democrat is propped up by the minorities more conspiracy theories will come this way.
> 
> Make no mistake, minorities actually do support Biden. He STILL is benefiting from Obama's goodwill and since Biden and Obama are buddies and when Obama comes out to endorse his corporate shill buddy Biden then it's over for anyone else.


Obama supported Trudeau for re-election after all the black face stuff came out. Also why is an American Politician endorsing anyone in a Canadian election? I thought us Americans hated election meddling? 8*D


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Obama supported Trudeau for re-election after all the black face stuff came out. Also why is an American Politician endorsing anyone in a Canadian election? I thought us Americans hated election meddling? 8*D


Obama's political clout needs to die. People don't realize how right of center he really is.


----------



## DOPA

Very interesting video in regards to who potentially out of the Democratic nominees could steal swing or lapsed Trump supporters. It is based off of a single poll, so take this with a grain of salt but the results are entirely not surprising.

Tulsi, who in my opinion is the best candidate out of the Democratic field as someone who is considered to be on the right leads the poll with 21%. Again, no shock because she's the only one with a strong stance against the military industrial complex and endless war. Bernie is on 15% and Yang is on 13%. Again, not surprising considering their campaigns. The rest are well behind.

Warren, who is one of the front runners and who I'm predicting will get the nomination sits on a pitiful 3% of Trump swing voters in the poll, behind the likes of Biden, Castro and Delaney.

I would like to see more polls like this to see what the overall trend is, but this is exactly why I think Warren will lose to Trump, I do not think she will appeal to the swing voters needed to win key states.


----------



## Miss Sally

DOPA said:


> Very interesting video in regards to who potentially out of the Democratic nominees could steal swing or lapsed Trump supporters. It is based off of a single poll, so take this with a grain of salt but the results are entirely not surprising.
> 
> Tulsi, who in my opinion is the best candidate out of the Democratic field as someone who is considered to be on the right leads the poll with 21%. Again, no shock because she's the only one with a strong stance against the military industrial complex and endless war. Bernie is on 15% and Yang is on 13%. Again, not surprising considering their campaigns. The rest are well behind.
> 
> Warren, who is one of the front runners and who I'm predicting will get the nomination sits on a pitiful 3% of Trump swing voters in the poll, behind the likes of Biden, Castro and Delaney.
> 
> I would like to see more polls like this to see what the overall trend is, but this is exactly why I think Warren will lose to Trump, I do not think she will appeal to the swing voters needed to win key states.


I believe Warren will snag the nomination as Bernie won't risk fighting her, she also fits in more with establishment Dems since she's a warmongering huckster. This is also if Clinton doesn't decide to run and further cause chaos.

Tulsi is by far the best candidate, Yang and Bernie are decent but both flip flop on stuff and pro-illegal stances aren't going to win over loads of people. 

One thing Trump did recently was double down on supporting black job creation etc. Cannot find the tweet but Tariq Nasheed was mentioning it. The Dems are trying to play this weird game where they talk about helping illegals more than citizens and it's not resonating well with minority communities who feel left out. Even if Trump does nothing, sowing this kind of division is smart as it's going to be hard to serve many masters.


----------



## DOPA

Miss Sally said:


> I believe Warren will snag the nomination as Bernie won't risk fighting her, *she also fits in more with establishment Dems since she's a warmongering huckster.* This is also if Clinton doesn't decide to run and further cause chaos.


Bolded the establishment Dems part to say bingo!

Warren has voted for every Trump increase in the military budget which is one of the worst aspects of his presidency, not to mention she's not shown any indication that she'll take steps towards ending the interventionist status quo. If she doesn't threaten the warfare/welfare establishment then when it comes down to it, the big money donors, corporate democrats and political elite will be prepared to compromise and back Warren.

Because here's the dirty little secret: Warren's flagship proposals on taxing the rich and wall street can all be avoided by the very same people through tax planning using lawyers and accountants. Simply put, the complicated tax code with all of it's loopholes and deductibles can and will be used so that those people pay little to no tax.

So they can afford Warren getting in, she's a small headache and inconvenience. Tulsi however? OH BOY WOULD THEY SHIT THEMSELVES. You only have to look at how mainstream publications cover Warren and then look at all the smears they've constantly attacked Gabbard with.



Miss Sally said:


> Tulsi is by far the best candidate, Yang and Bernie are decent but both flip flop on stuff and pro-illegal stances aren't going to win over loads of people.


I like Yang to be honest, I think UBI is worth talking about and his version of it from what I can tell would replace the welfare state more so than add on to it, which is what a lot of leftist versions of UBI look like. UBI whilst it's a reaction to automation when it comes down to it is also a solution boiled down to the fact that the welfare state is failing as a form of safety net due to the poverty traps it creates for those who are out of work. This has been recognized by both left wing and right wing proponents of the program and has also therefore been shunned as a workable safety net program to deal with the ongoing automation that is slowly creeping up and therefore seen as a big problem for the near future. The problem with using UBI as an add on to the current system is that it just becomes another welfare program on top of what is already in place and therefore does not address the root problems that they cause. This is why for example Kyle Kulinski does not agree with Yang's version of UBI because he advocates for it to be added on to the current welfare state. I could not be any more opposed to that idea.

His advocating of decriminalizing all drugs is also very bold in American politics and one that I wholeheartedly support.

It's no secret however that I'm not a fan of Bernie's. He veers too far to the left to me. I support Universal healthcare but do not support Single Payer. They are not synonymous with one another because SP is only one for form of universal healthcare. This is something progressives have either willingly or unwillingly lied about but has helped to shape the healthcare debate in their favour without a good alternative to go up against it.....mainly because the current American healthcare system is terrible. There are many other economic areas I just simply don't agree with him. He also should stop angling himself as a democratic socialist because at least in terms of the policies he's advocating for, he's not a socialist. He's a social democrat, someone in favour of heavily regulated capitalism. He's not arguing to nationalize multiple economic sectors and industries like Jeremy Corbyn in my country as an example....and thank fuck he's not, the last thing you need is a lunatic like Corbyn.

If I remember correctly, Tulsi was the only candidate who stated that she did not support giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants....which just goes to show how far the Democrats have gone down the open border train. It is absurd that not only is there talk of decriminalizing migrants crossing the mexican border but that they are prepared to give out welfare and free healthcare on top of that. You can have socialized medicine and welfare with a border or be borderless with no welfare state. You cannot have both.



Miss Sally said:


> One thing Trump did recently was double down on supporting black job creation etc. Cannot find the tweet but Tariq Nasheed was mentioning it. The Dems are trying to play this weird game where they talk about helping illegals more than citizens and it's not resonating well with minority communities who feel left out. Even if Trump does nothing, sowing this kind of division is smart as it's going to be hard to serve many masters.


I do remember that tweet you talking about and it was honestly the most perplexing thing to see someone who has not only been so heavily against Trump but let's just be honest, is a black identitarian, actually praising Trump somewhat for trying to look out for African Americans.

These are weird times to say the least :lol.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Sorry if this has been posted.

This is John Legend's new cover of 'Baby It's Cold Outside' with new "acceptable" lyrics. It like a parody of wokeness, but it's not. They're serious with this.






:lmao


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195759087927136257
Conservatives' Grand Canyon-sized blind spot for how capitalists largely view the traditional nuclear family as an impediment to their own spheres' financial growth versus the increasingly atomizing characteristics of Western society over the last one hundred and fifty years remains both appalling and blackly humorous. One must consider that many feigning ignorance are not ignorant, but for every one of those there are doubtless scores who are. The generally accepted optics for decades revolving around "gay window" or "gay vague" advertising is suddenly, almost violently being replaced with altogether frank demonstrations on behalf of aforesaid groups. Conservatives may possess a tremendous disdain for egalitarianism which is understandable, but their lack of misgivings concerning the upper class and morality of same illustrate a lack of greater comprehension. Jim Fisk, Jay Gould, Armand Hammer, and a host of others were not wholly unlike the Silicon Valley titans like Steve Jobs or a magnate such as Ross Perot or financier Michael Milken in that they are arguably chiefly manipulators of government bureaucrats. It was odd that post-World War II conservatives seldom admitted to this discomfiting reality. Mariana Mazzucato's _The Entrepreneurial State_ documents in terrific detail how Silicon Valley is as much an institution spawned by the U.S. federal government as its own private entity--and that is likely understating the case. Meanwhile, Gillette scores "#MeToo"-era points for disseminating sanctimonious messages pertaining to "male privilege" worthy of medieval penitents while boasting the brand name of a nearly $230-billion company which holds approximately fifty percent of the U.S.'s razor market. Many board meetings and advertising campaigns in 2019 happily acknowledge that no group is so naturally fitting for being almost impulsive consumers as those who are not seeking to start a family, which typically includes among its most prominent members a dramatically sizable portion of those falling outside of the "cisgender" or heterosexual categories. 

Sprite, Gillette and a bevy of other massive companies are not kowtowing to "SJWs"; they _are_ among the most critical tips of the spears of "SJWism," for lack of more prudent phrasing. 

Curious circumstances to be sure.


----------



## Pratchett

If we were going to look at seriously fair elections in this country, instead of the corrupt Establishment seeking to perpetuate itself, the DNC would have used its puppet Media to give the "Obama" treatment to Tulsi Gabbard years ago in order to set her up to beat Trump in 2020. Fair coverage and positive mentions, in order to put her in the public consciousness as someone to take seriously. Had that happened, I believe she would be currently running away with the Dem nomination and on the path to winning the Presidency. But instead we have more "Russian conspiracy" and pointless impeachment hearings that are only being used to ensure that Joe Biden and his Obama-Era "member-berries" ultimately get the nomination.

Just keep in mind, my friends, that voting for Joe Biden is akin to voting for whomever he selects as VP. The dementia will claim him well before his first term is over. But that doesn't matter as long as evil Drumpf is cast aside, amirite?

Don't even sit there and pretend that Warren can beat Trump in a fair election. Hell, even in a rigged election I am not sure the corrupt Establishment would want her at the helm. Even the Press on her own side trying to make her look good might ask her the wrong question if we don't go full dystopia fast enough. We can't let the mask slip for a second, can we?

The only real Threat to Trump is Bernie. Which is why we are still getting these pointless impeachment hearings. And if there is one thing the Establishment doesn't want, it is Trump out of power.

Wrap your heads around that, plebs. My eyes are wide open. :russo


----------



## virus21




----------



## virus21

> Former Vice President Joe Biden defended his reasoning to not legalize marijuana on a federal level if elected president, saying there is not “enough evidence” as to “whether or not it is a gateway drug.”
> 
> Speaking at a town hall in Las Vegas on Saturday, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate said whether the U.S. should legalize cannabis on a federal level is still up for debate as far as he is concerned.
> 
> “The truth of the matter is, there’s not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug,” Biden said, according to Business Insider. “It’s a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it.”
> 
> Biden, as he has throughout his time on the campaign trail, said he supports medical marijuana and insisted possession of the substance "should not be a crime."
> 
> But he also said Saturday that he thinks the decision to legalize marijuana should be left up to individual states.
> 
> “States should be able to make a judgment to legalize marijuana,” he said at the town hall.
> 
> As for legalization on a federal level, Biden said more research is needed.
> 
> "It is not irrational to do more scientific investigation to determine, which we have not done significantly enough, whether or not there are any things that relate to whether it's a gateway drug or not," Biden said.
> 
> Several of his top Democratic rivals in the race have thrown their support behind legalizing marijuana, which is currently classified as a Schedule I substance, which the Drug Enforcement Administration defines as drugs “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Other Schedule I drugs include heroin and LSD.
> 
> Biden’s campaign previously noted the former vice president would reschedule the substance as a Schedule II drug to aid in researching its health impacts.
> 
> Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have all said they would make marijuana legal on a federal level if elected president.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/470861-biden-says-he-wont-legalize-marijuana-because-it-may-be-a-gateway-drug


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195759087927136257
> Conservatives' Grand Canyon-sized blind spot for how capitalists largely view the traditional nuclear family as an impediment to their own spheres' financial growth versus the increasingly atomizing characteristics of Western society over the last one hundred and fifty years remains both appalling and blackly humorous. One must consider that many feigning ignorance are not ignorant, but for every one of those there are doubtless scores who are. The generally accepted optics for decades revolving around "gay window" or "gay vague" advertising is suddenly, almost violently being replaced with altogether frank demonstrations on behalf of aforesaid groups. Conservatives may possess a tremendous disdain for egalitarianism which is understandable, but their lack of misgivings concerning the upper class and morality of same illustrate a lack of greater comprehension. Jim Fisk, Jay Gould, Armand Hammer, and a host of others were not wholly unlike the Silicon Valley titans like Steve Jobs or a magnate such as Ross Perot or financier Michael Milken in that they are arguably chiefly manipulators of government bureaucrats. It was odd that post-World War II conservatives seldom admitted to this discomfiting reality. Mariana Mazzucato's _The Entrepreneurial State_ documents in terrific detail how Silicon Valley is as much an institution spawned by the U.S. federal government as its own private entity--and that is likely understating the case. Meanwhile, Gillette scores "#MeToo"-era points for disseminating sanctimonious messages pertaining to "male privilege" worthy of medieval penitents while boasting the brand name of a nearly $230-billion company which holds approximately fifty percent of the U.S.'s razor market. Many board meetings and advertising campaigns in 2019 happily acknowledge that no group is so naturally fitting for being almost impulsive consumers as those who are not seeking to start a family, which typically includes among its most prominent members a dramatically sizable portion of those falling outside of the "cisgender" or heterosexual categories.
> 
> Sprite, Gillette and a bevy of other massive companies are not kowtowing to "SJWs"; they _are_ among the most critical tips of the spears of "SJWism," for lack of more prudent phrasing.
> 
> Curious circumstances to be sure.


They're trying to nab this demographic to sell to while simultaneously bring in their old customer base by using guilt/feel good tactics. Trying to associate consumerism with virtue by exploiting the selfishness and laziness of people.

Take carbon offsets for example or people simply donating a few bucks to a bell ringing santa at Christmas. They do this and suddenly they're good people. No real effort, no real loss yet can boast about one's "good deeds".

The secondary insidious nature of this is shaming, I'm sure corporations have noticed how Cancel Culture and Outrage Mobs have bullied and silenced people into compliance. Now if they can get this into their favor they can coerce people into buying products or face public disapproval. "Why didn't your parents buy you the rainbow light up Colin Kaepernick Nikes, Timmy? Are they racist and bigots? Or do they simply not love you enough to buy you nice things?"

By tying in feel goods with shame, you can force people's hand when it comes to product purchasing. Either way you win. The whole SJW movement is nothing more than a massive tool for Corporations to make money and people fall for it. People laughed about Soros pouring money into various movements as a "crazy conspiracy" yet billion dollar organizations and corporations.. with some of the worst track records when it comes to human rights and treatment of workers are all in on it. Seems odd doesn't it?

Import cheap labor you can force to work for next to nothing, offset outrage and depression by creating a mindless all consuming consumer culture, ensure nothing changes by greasing the right political palms and keeping that never ending supply of workers/consumers coming, control the entire the entire political culture. Profit. 
:boombrock


----------



## MrMister

Biden is seriously talking about gateway drugs...

Alcohol kills more people and leads to using other drugs. It's legal. Any serious person cannot claim marijuana should be illegal while alcohol remains legal. Also we have had doctors prescribing all kinds of opiates/opioids for years now and this fucking guy is talking about gateway drugs. Biden is so fucking old.

More good will come of its legalization than bad. More people might use it, but you will have less violent crime and less people in prison in general.


Also Kaepernick wore a Kunta Kinte shirt to his workout for NFL teams.


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> Biden is seriously talking about gateway drugs...
> 
> Alcohol kills more people and leads to using other drugs. It's legal. Any serious person cannot claim marijuana should be illegal while alcohol remains legal. Also we have had doctors prescribing all kinds of opiates/opioids for years now and this fucking guy is talking about gateway drugs. Biden is so fucking old.
> 
> More good will come of its legalization than bad. More people might use it, but you will have less violent crime and less people in prison in general.
> 
> 
> Also Kaepernick wore a Kunta Kinte shirt to his workout for NFL teams.


Booze and smokes kill far more people than most of the dangerous stuff we have outrage over.

Is Kaepernick even serious anymore? This guy is a goof. :laugh:


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Booze and smokes kill far more people than most of the dangerous stuff we have outrage over.
> 
> Is Kaepernick even serious anymore? This guy is a goof. :laugh:


But the government can regulate smokes and booze.


----------



## virus21

> TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — A video which surfaced on Monday (Nov. 18) appearing to show Hong Kong protesters being loaded onto a train near the border with China, is sparking fears online they are being sent to a detention center in the communist country, similar the "reeducation camps" used to incarcerate ethnic Uighurs.
> 
> As clashes continued on college campuses between riot police and pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong, a video was posted on Twitter spurring concerns that arrested demonstrators were being illegally extradited to China. At 2:33 p.m. on Monday, Twitter user @Woppa1Woppa posted a video showing handcuffed protesters being forced onto a train and wrote that it was unknown where they were being sent.
> 
> Below the Tweet, several netizens identified the train as belonging to the East Rail Line of the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) system. Although the destination for the detainees is unknown, netizens pointed out that the last two stations are Lo Wu and Lok Ma Chau, which are both border checkpoints to enter China.
> 
> Twitter users suggested that the students were from Hong Kong Polytechnic University, which was the scene of fierce clashes between riot police and pro-democracy protesters on Monday. One Twitter user, who goes by the handle @lilisuricate, ominously said that there are no Hong Kong police stations near any of the stops along the train's route to the China border.
> 
> The Twitter account for the youth activist group Demosisto wrote that the people in the Northern District "threw objects on the railway track" to prevent the protesters from being transported to China. Hong Kong police have yet to issue an official statement on the destination of the arrested demonstrators.
> 
> Arrested protesters are getting transported out on a train. Unknown at this time where they will be sent. Residents and press are heard asking for their names
> 
> via on9谷#StandWithHongKong #HongKongProtests pic.twitter.com/N2I4MMXu8R


https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3819595


----------



## FriedTofu

What is happening in Hong Kong is so sad. Less than 2 decades into 50 year agreement and China decided to do away with even putting up a show to uphold the agreement. There is going to be an even bigger brain drain for Hong Kong now.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> Biden is seriously talking about gateway drugs...
> 
> Alcohol kills more people and leads to using other drugs. It's legal. Any serious person cannot claim marijuana should be illegal while alcohol remains legal. Also we have had doctors prescribing all kinds of opiates/opioids for years now and this fucking guy is talking about gateway drugs. Biden is so fucking old.
> 
> More good will come of its legalization than bad. More people might use it, but you will have less violent crime and less people in prison in general.
> 
> 
> Also Kaepernick wore a Kunta Kinte shirt to his workout for NFL teams.


Biden and Hillary are doing their part in exposing what kind of a government Obama had. I'm glad they both ran after he ended his terms because now more and more people are turning on Obama as well and finally opening their eyes to the fact that the dems are republikkkan-lite.










Also, Yang supporters are useful fucking idiots. 

I keep getting asked "what about Yang?" 

I think he's fucking trash. One ok half-baked essentially non-sense gimmick doesn't make for a good platform.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> Biden is seriously talking about gateway drugs...
> 
> Alcohol kills more people and leads to using other drugs. It's legal. Any serious person cannot claim marijuana should be illegal while alcohol remains legal. Also we have had doctors prescribing all kinds of opiates/opioids for years now and this fucking guy is talking about gateway drugs. Biden is so fucking old.
> 
> More good will come of its legalization than bad. More people might use it, but you will have less violent crime and less people in prison in general.
> 
> 
> Also Kaepernick wore a Kunta Kinte shirt to his workout for NFL teams.


Biden is the gateway to four more years of Trump.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Biden is the gateway to four more years of Trump.


The future is going to sanitize Trump and given that America is in a freefall for the poor who have no idea that they're in the middle of a class struggle for better conditions will look at Trump as a good president because when you're in the kind of downward spiral you are in America due to the system being flawed, you keep associating bad times with bad presidents and therefore with the decline the predecessor appears to be better than the successor. 

That's how it goes.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196494660400766977
Guess it's okay to talk about it now that we're well past the tipping point. :lol


----------



## Stephen90

Miss Sally said:


> Booze and smokes kill far more people than most of the dangerous stuff we have outrage over.
> 
> Is Kaepernick even serious anymore? This guy is a goof. :laugh:


Biden is still a Democrat from 1990's and Kaepernick should think about trying out for the new XFL. A backup QB ain't worth all this trouble.


----------



## CamillePunk

Buttigieg with a 10-point lead in New Hampshire. :wow

Give me that contested convention with super delegates again deciding the Democratic nominee, setting up Trump vs Hilldog II. :mark:


----------



## virus21

> The Ford government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars this year to tear down or cancel 751 renewable energy projects around the province, according to documents obtained by CityNews.
> 
> “Last year, this government insisted that there would be no cost to cancelling renewable energy projects like the White Pines Wind Farm,” NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns said in the legislature Tuesday.
> 
> For the White Pines Wind Farm project in Prince Edward County, the Ontario government is on the hook for an estimated $141 million. The company had signed a 20-year contract to provide the province with renewable energy.
> 
> At the project, located two hours east of Toronto, cranes started arriving last month to tear down 100-metre-tall wind turbines that were just built and ready to be switched on. The project was more than a decade in the making and was expected to produce enough energy to power more than 60,000 homes over the length of its contract.
> 
> While planning for many of the 751 cancelled projects was well underway, they had not hit key construction milestones. The White Pines project is unique in that construction began in 2017 and the turbines are ready to go.
> 
> Outside the town of Milford, nine wind turbines — four fully constructed and five more partially so — are coming down. They are a casualty of the White Pines Wind Project Termination Act, a bill that was passed by Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government just weeks after coming into office.
> 
> The government won’t say how much this decommissioning is costing but based on publicly-available documents showing wind power rates, and the project’s generating capacity, CityNews has calculated the province would owe the provider more than $7 million per year of the contract, or just over $141 million over 20 years.
> 
> The total cost of all the cancelled renewable energy projects around the provinces is $231 million in 2018-2019, according to the Public Accounts of Ontario.
> 
> 
> Close caption
> CityNews has been investigating the costs of decommissioning the projects for weeks. In that time, the government declined to say how much cancelling the White Pines Wind Project would cost taxpayers.
> 
> On Tuesday, associate minister of energy Bill Walker would again not confirm the figure in Question Period. Neither would Energy Minister Greg Rickford when he was asked by CityNews earlier this week.
> 
> However, an email obtained by CityNews shows that Rickford’s office did confirm to researchers at Queen’s Park that the $231 million was indeed to wind down wind projects. After Question Period on Tuesday, Walker confirmed the figure.
> 
> In a one-on-one interview with Rickford, the minister told CityNews that the government’s plan was on track.
> 
> “We’re making sure this is entirely consistent with the plan. Sometimes costs upfront will save us down the road — that’s the way we looked at the risks with the 750 projects in total,” he said.
> 
> On Tuesday morning, Tabuns likened the cancellations to the Liberal’s cancellation of gas plants in 2010.
> 
> “The similarities are striking,” he said. “We saw what the Liberal government did to hydro bills and now Premier Ford is doing the same thing at the same time as he’s letting hydro prices increase.”
> 
> Walker responded that White Pines and the other 750 renewable energy projects weren’t necessary.
> 
> “Our government has been very clear that it would act to cancel any unnecessary contracts. Ontario has an adequate supply of power right now,” he said.
> 
> The government also said the move will eventually save taxpayers money.
> 
> “Any of the projects that we cancelled were going to cost our system more money over the long haul than the ratepayer was prepared to pay,” Rickford said. “Extraordinarily high-priced projects, like wind power and solar, were not making us competitive. They needed to be dealt with.”
> 
> The government estimates the cancellations will save $790 million in the long term, but couldn’t tell CityNews how much had been spent to date in settling those contracts, despite repeated requests or how much the government was saving by cancelling the White Pines contract.
> 
> “Those costs are ongoing, the project is in the process of decommissioning. I don’t see any red flags there,” Rickford told CityNews.
> 
> CityNews has confirmed that a negotiated settlement has been reached with WPD Canada, the Mississauga company that owns the White Pines turbines. Company spokesperson Ian McCrae would not disclose details of the settlement between the government and WPD shareholders. In the past, company officials have confirmed that it is upwards of $100 million.
> 
> The opposition are also arguing that the PC government — which is currently fighting federal climate legislation in court — has another motivation for cancelling the renewable energy projects.
> 
> “The government needs to be honest with people about their politically-motivated campaign of literally ripping turbines out of the ground,” Ontario Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said. “It’s going to cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars. […] I don’t think tax payers want their money wasted.”
> 
> “I don’t believe that they don’t have the information about how much its going to cost,” Tabuns said. “But this is a government that never cares particularly about cost when it comes to pursuing their anti-climate change agenda.”
> 
> Tabuns believes that, like the Liberal gas plant scandal, this cancellation will result in an investigation by the auditor-general, something CityNews has heard from other sources involved in the file.
> 
> “It’s contrary to the interests of people’s pocket books, their lungs and the environment,” he said. “It’s hard for me to believe that the auditor-general won’t follow up.”
> 
> “This is heartbreaking.”
> 
> When asked about the cost of cancellations, Walker said the White Pines community never wanted the windmills and they were imposed by the previous Liberal government.
> 
> “We knew that from Day 1, they knew that from Day 1, and they continued to impose these on unwilling hosts like White Pines was,” he said.
> 
> The Milford windmills have been controversial in the community. However, locals whose land the turbines are on are upset to see the project scrapped.
> 
> “This is heartbreaking, this has been years and years of building a project that’s being cancelled for absolutely no good reason,” Jennifer Ackerman, who has a turbine on her property, said. “All those years of putting it up to say ‘Oh, its up, and let’s tear it all down.’ The environmental impact of that and nothing gained. Nothing.”
> 
> Ackerman is one of several area residents who were heavily lobbying for the turbines, which is located not too far from the shores of Lake Ontario.
> 
> “I believe in renewable energy. The science is there, it’s a fact Jack, that we’ve got to get away from fossil fuels and this is the way to do it,” added area resident Anne McIntosh.
> 
> 
> Close caption
> Ackerman is still being compensated for the lease of her land, as are the other land owners. “Twenty-thousand dollars a year, approximately, for 20 years. Do the math and we’re getting paid well,” she said. The total would be approximately $400,000.
> 
> Ackerman adds: “The amount hasn’t changed with the turbines being cancelled.”
> 
> She’s now getting paid in two lump sums — one when the turbines come down, and another when the decommissioning is fully complete. Removing the concrete, with winter on the horizon, could take upwards of a year.
> 
> According to terms reached with the government, the company has three years to fully restore the site. It is anticipated the wind turbines and towers will sit on the ground until next spring.
> 
> “I’m not saying I don’t appreciate some money and the revenue was looking great,” Ackerman said. “But given the choice between the money and the wind farm? I want the wind farm.”


https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/11/19/ford-government-spending-231m-to-cancel-renewable-energy-projects/


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump is soo embarrassing, how can anyone still defend this clown.


----------



## Draykorinee

He is an utter embarrassment. So is the idea that Ukraine is going to have any impact.


----------



## Interceptor88

Trumps was right when he said he can do whatever he wants and people will still defend him. I can imagine the ********: "yeah he bribed Ukraine but liberals want to take mah money and this guy, no matter if he's plain evil, is one of us!".


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197287729782018048
:lmao


----------



## ShiningStar

The "Bush-Clinton-Trump" foreign policy

At least Tulsi is politically astute enough to exclude a 4th obvious name with that trio even if it's intellectually dishonest.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197360044263825414
Bernie and Kamala's faces. :sodone


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197362873883856896
:heston


----------



## DesolationRow

A most excellent post regarding the state of the corporate world, @Miss Sally;. Thank you for your contribution.


Tulsi Gabbard calls the foreign policy of "regime change wars" the "Bush-Clinton-Trump" foreign policy, skipping over Barack Obama. This in spite of Obama's escapades, perhaps most notably in Libya as well as taking matters to the brink with Syria before pumping the proverbial brakes in the late summer of 2013 after having established his feckless "red line." About three seconds later Kamala Harris smears Gabbard for purportedly constantly criticizing Obama during his presidency.

Hope Tulsi learned her lesson. She effectively sought to sugarcoat Obama's very existence by not mentioning him as having the same foreign policy as his predecessors after having run so adamantly in 2007-2008 against the Iraq War. Only for her nemesis to almost instantly tar Gabbard as being anti-Obama. :lol Hope you learned your lesson, Tulsi. 

Pete Buttigieg polling at 0% among blacks in Iowa and more importantly South Carolina no matter how robustly he surges among college-educated whites is humorous to see over and over. :lol

@CamillePunk; that story out of California concerning the state's swift demographic transformation is funny to read. For decades Democrats such as Donna Brazile and Joy Reid were rather frank and forthcoming over how California was destined to not only go blue but stay blue--not because the state's residents had politically changed their minds about much, particularly the more "conservative" wings of the population, but that the state's demographic makeup had changed so thoroughly, so sweepingly, that those belonging to aforementioned "conservative" wings were simply wholly overwhelmed. :lol


----------



## Stephen90

Mayor Pete got destroyed


----------



## virus21




----------



## Pratchett

birthday_massacre said:


> Biden is the gateway to four more years of Trump.


Biden or Warren going up against Trump is going to make Reagan vs. Mondale look like a nail biter.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197975120188456962
I'm sure the armchair prosecutors will be all over this one!


----------



## ShiningStar

Pratchett said:


> Biden or Warren going up against Trump is going to make Reagan vs. Mondale look like a nail biter.


I doubt you will get any kind of blowout's like that the next few Presidential elections as neither party is going sub 40 unless they run someone Roy Moore level bad. That said Biden and Warren feel like they might be 2 of the worst GE candidates potentially albeit for different reasons.


----------



## birthday_massacre

ShiningStar said:


> I doubt you will get any kind of blowout's like that the next few Presidential elections as neither party is going sub 40 unless they run someone Roy Moore level bad. That said Biden and Warren feel like they might be 2 of the worst GE candidates potentially albeit for different reasons.


Bernie would landslide Trump. It wouldnt even be close.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197982064945094657
:heston


----------



## virus21




----------



## BruiserKC

MrMister said:


> Biden is seriously talking about gateway drugs...
> 
> Alcohol kills more people and leads to using other drugs. It's legal. Any serious person cannot claim marijuana should be illegal while alcohol remains legal. Also we have had doctors prescribing all kinds of opiates/opioids for years now and this fucking guy is talking about gateway drugs. Biden is so fucking old.
> 
> More good will come of its legalization than bad. More people might use it, but you will have less violent crime and less people in prison in general.
> 
> 
> Also Kaepernick wore a Kunta Kinte shirt to his workout for NFL teams.





Miss Sally said:


> Booze and smokes kill far more people than most of the dangerous stuff we have outrage over.
> 
> Is Kaepernick even serious anymore? This guy is a goof. :laugh:


Let me start by saying you aren’t touching my beer, that ain’t happening.  We go back and forth on the health benefits of alcohol in moderation just like they do on coffee, eggs, etc. While they have worked on making marijuana safe as a medicinal benefit, more research can still be done to determine its benefits as a recreational drug. And yes, it can still do damage to the body if used recreationally just like overdrinking or smoking five packs of Marlboros. There can be more to it then just getting the munchies and murdering a bag of Doritos. 

As for Kaepernick, I don’t doubt the NFL threw this whole workout together in a half-ass attempt to just make this go away. Why hold a workout on a Saturday when you have the teams already at their destinations for Sunday? At the same time, all he had to do was show up and do his thing. Instead, he has now made himself more radioactive. It boils down to whether what he has left in the tank is going to be worth the controversy that will consume whatever locker room he enters. It’s that simple. And if he is to get onto a roster this season, there are a few teams out there that could use help and sign him. But there is a time for activism and a time for doing the job.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1198832533242183686
Non-liberal whites still being less racially biased than blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. :heston


----------



## Reaper




----------



## DOPA

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-car-m25-brentwood-essex-police-a9217891.html



> Police are investigating claims two pro-EU campaigners were pulled over and told to remove a “Bollocks to Brexit” sticker from their car.
> 
> Passenger Peter Cook posted a video on Twitter claiming that officers had “bullied” the campaigners into removing the slogan from their Mini Cooper on the M25 near Brentwood on Sunday afternoon.
> 
> Sharing footage of the incident on social media, campaign group Bollocks to Brexit said: “Essex Police bullied us into removing ‘Bollocks’ from our car ... I am calling the Police Complaints Commission.”
> 
> Mr Cook claimed a police officer said the slogan was a “public order offence” and that he felt “totally unsafe” after being pulled over on a hard shoulder, Sky News reports.
> 
> Essex police are now investigating the incident. However, they have not yet confirmed whether displaying a “Bollocks to Brexit” sign constitutes a public order offence.
> 
> A spokesperson for the police force said: “We are trying to identify the officer from the video footage to establish the circumstances around what happened.
> 
> “In the meantime, we would encourage the driver to get in touch with us.”
> 
> The Independent Office for Police Conduct did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
> 
> *Earlier this year, a passenger was put in a holding area at Gatwick Airport because he was wearing a “Bollocks to Brexit” badge.*
> 
> The businessman was released after about 10 minutes but was left feeling “shaken” by the experience and reported the incident to the UK Border Force.
> 
> In November 1977, a court ruled that “bollocks” was not an obscene word after the manager of Virgin Records in Nottingham was arrested for refusing to remove the Sex Pistols album Never Mind The Bollocks from his shop window.
> 
> The manager was found not guilty after an expert witness, the head of English at Nottingham University, testified that the word was used in early versions of the Bible to mean “testicles”.


Freedom of expression is not under threat in the UK they said.

Don't even agree with the guys opinions but this is sheer utter lunacy and quite frankly another scary example of the lack of free speech we have in this country.


----------



## Stormbringer

So this happened!


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1198832533242183686
> Non-liberal whites still being less racially biased than blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. :heston


Yup. Your average non-white person doesn't want white people to suffer any negative programs etc, only the White "Left" does. It's as I said before, need someone to hate, can't keep being "good" and hate others so got to hate yourselves.

This is why they suffer from bigotry of low expectations and do so much lowkey racist stuff. They think as long as they only keep their hate to people who look like them and by virtue of their voting, that they can never be racist or bad. :laugh:

I've never seen such a delusional group of people.


----------



## Reaper

I doubt that there are people who still think that Obama is anything but a Republican, but if you ever needed anymore evidence, here you go. 

This guy was the biggest hoax perpetrated upon Americans since the Incubator Babies. He kept the prison reform, bombed and killed thousands of innocents, froze the minimum wage for his 7 years of his term, destroyed healthcare affordability and handed the country to Trump on a silver platter. 

What's worse is though that he's a lover of Biden and Hillary - two prominent far right democrats. One of whom co-authored the New Jim Crow and the other started 5 new wars.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> I doubt that there are people who still think that Obama is anything but a Republican, but if you ever needed anymore evidence, here you go.
> 
> This guy was the biggest hoax perpetrated upon Americans since the Incubator Babies. He kept the prison reform, bombed and killed thousands of innocents, froze the minimum wage for his 7 years of his term, destroyed healthcare affordability and handed the country to Trump on a silver platter.
> 
> What's worse is though that he's a lover of Biden and Hillary - two prominent far right democrats. One of whom co-authored the New Jim Crow and the other started 5 new wars.


And no one will care, because people are sheep.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Yup. Your average non-white person doesn't want white people to suffer any negative programs etc, only the White "Left" does. It's as I said before, need someone to hate, can't keep being "good" and hate others so got to hate yourselves.
> 
> This is why they suffer from bigotry of low expectations and do so much lowkey racist stuff. They think as long as they only keep their hate to people who look like them and by virtue of their voting, that they can never be racist or bad. :laugh:
> 
> I've never seen such a delusional group of people.


Identity politics :eyeroll2


----------



## MrMister

Miss Sally said:


> Yup. Your average non-white person doesn't want white people to suffer any negative programs etc, only the White "Left" does. It's as I said before, need someone to hate, can't keep being "good" and hate others so got to hate yourselves.
> 
> This is why they suffer from bigotry of low expectations and do so much lowkey racist stuff. They think as long as they only keep their hate to people who look like them and by virtue of their voting, that they can never be racist or bad. :laugh:
> 
> I've never seen such a delusional group of people.


edit: never mind you said exactly what I edited lol

Can't agree more with this post.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> And no one will care, because people are sheep.


One good thing came of Obama though. Booker and Harris (both DNC muppets) got absolutely no traction whatsoever. A lot of people have wisened up to the corporate Democrats. 

Now if only they'll realize that Warren, Bootygig and Yang are ALSO essentially center right to far right corporatists, then they might actually be on to something.

No idea what's going on with Biden, but I'm guessing that the polls are rigged or fake at this point. 

No way that PoS has THIS much traction.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> I doubt that there are people who still think that Obama is anything but a Republican, but if you ever needed anymore evidence, here you go.
> 
> This guy was the biggest hoax perpetrated upon Americans since the Incubator Babies. He kept the prison reform, bombed and killed thousands of innocents, froze the minimum wage for his 7 years of his term, destroyed healthcare affordability and handed the country to Trump on a silver platter.
> 
> What's worse is though that he's a lover of Biden and Hillary - two prominent far right democrats. One of whom co-authored the New Jim Crow and the other started 5 new wars.


Say it aint so!? He's the GOAT President after all! 



Draykorinee said:


> Identity politics :eyeroll2


Identity Politics is cancer. Thing is most people are pretty decent in normal circumstances, which is why the few groups that go out of their way to hate on white people are wrapped up in Identity Politics.

Negative views of people passed on by culture can be dispelled by simply talking to and empathizing with those people you're taught to dislike. It's just ignorance. Now it's nearly impossible to dispel ignorance that comes from the white "Left" because they're taught in academia/politics that this view is correct. Hard to realize your ignorance when you're "educated". 

The biggest threat to white people isn't dark skinned people, it's people who look exactly like them. Who think their self-righteousness is divine mandate from their professors and cliques of rich/middle class suburbanites who think themselves better. :laugh:


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1198832533242183686
> Non-liberal whites still being less racially biased than blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. :heston


I've read that study and I think it makes sense but it's an ultra small sample size.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DOPA said:


> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-car-m25-brentwood-essex-police-a9217891.html
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of expression is not under threat in the UK they said.
> 
> Don't even agree with the guys opinions but this is sheer utter lunacy and quite frankly another scary example of the lack of free speech we have in this country.


Isn't "Bollocks" regarded as a really bad swear word in England?

Nonetheless so retarded.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Undertaker23RKO said:


> I've read that study and I think it makes sense but it's an ultra small sample size.


Also a 'pilot survey' lol. Doesn't stop the CP agenda however.


----------



## DOPA

yeahbaby! said:


> Isn't "Bollocks" regarded as a really bad swear word in England?
> 
> Nonetheless so retarded.


It's considered a slur yeah, it's honestly not that bad either compared to others anyway.

Yeah it is stupid, but our own speech laws have basically opened this up to even become a thing and for power to be abused. It's why I am very much jealous of the 1st amendment the US has in it's Constitution.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Tulsi was on Joe Rogan.

Full episode






Clips


----------



## DesolationRow

Saw that same tweet, @Reaper;, and found the twitter meltdown, after having only exposed myself to it for perhaps a couple of minutes, to be rather entertaining concerning Tucker Carlson gleefully and caustically stating that he is rooting for Russia. :lmao The children of baby boomers evidently want to relive their parents' lives and keep the world stuck in the amber of 1962 for some reason. :lol


----------

