|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 24 2016 22:22 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 22:09 Plansix wrote:
As long as we assume the heat death of the universe will happen, he is 100% right. I don’t think buying silver will help, though. wait, isn't that super old and people think it's doing the exact opposite by now expanding way faster than it should resulting in stuff getting colder if anything as things stretch out more and more? Where are people who know their shit about this stuff when you need them~
"heat death" of the universe means death from all energy becoming uniform heat.
It implies that the heat is very spread out (ie everything drops to Almost absolute 0) so that is consistent.
What you are thinking about is the "Big Crunch" the idea that gravity will eventually pull the universe together and you will have a reverse big bang.
|
On March 24 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 23:27 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 24 2016 23:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 24 2016 23:03 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 24 2016 22:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 24 2016 17:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 24 2016 15:46 LegalLord wrote:FP experience at making things worse (which Hillary has a whole lot of) is a fair bit worse than minimal experience but a saner policy. All of us who are of non-American origins have our biases (i.e. we want the US to be a proxy supporter of our own national interests) but overall I'd say that almost every major FP decision that Hillary has been part of has ended up working out pretty shitty for the US. An article on her FP record: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/11/the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/It's just too bad that the Republicans are just so much worse than Hillary at good FP that there's no credible alternative to her on that front. No offence meant, but if you, Legallord, dislike her FP record, it's probably good for the US  That is an unfortunate, yet very Baltic, take on things. Not that it really matters because in terms of FP understanding, the US lives in a whole different world than every other country. No real sense of viable long-term strategy and easily duped into creating stupid conflicts that won't end well for the US, but benefit other countries that want to have the US fight wars on their behalf (with grossly overpriced airplanes no less). I wonder if that has a lot to do with why you like Hillary? If I were to be a mouthpiece for the Estonian govt., I'd be singing the FP praises of Kasich who aligns best. There is a bit of bias I haven't mentioned because one of Hillary's promised policies would probably lead to my wife getting a raise, but I haven't even mentioned this policy as a positive in this thread. But what I really meant with my comment is that Hillary is the only candidate remaining who can pronounce those pesky long words in international relations. Case in point: I think that Trump is ahead of the curve on many issues, and his stance on NATO is the perfect example. NATO, as presently constituted, operated, and used, is obsolete. We are due to have a discussion on what NATO is and should be going into the future. I do wonder where people get this idea from? NATO capabilities are at the heart of the military infrastructure of pretty much every country represented by a poster in this thread. As NATO has had decades to allow countries to specialize, no one country has unilateral defense capability anymore. Perhaps people think that NATO hasn't modernized, but as with most military matters, they do it without fanfare. NATO currently runs 6 missions, mostly peacekeeping (think Africa), but there's still Afghanistan and for those worried about terrorism and illegal immigration into Europe, that's mostly done by NATO maritime capabilities, especially on the coordination front. Recall that article five has been tapped only once in recent history, and that was by the US in response to 9/11. No government in NATO is calling for an overhaul, but there are plenty of those who call for reaffirming their commitment (Besides the US, even Germany is calling for countries to push up their defense spending to 2% of GDP and just launched a modernization plan that aims to push up German defense spending). Besides this, since Russia and China started their aggressive military modernization and started expanding their territories by questionable means (think Crimea and artificial islands in the South China Sea), most NATO countries see the need to bolster article five. In fact, that's driving countries that have historically been neutral into NATO (think Sweden and Finland) to join. Just as additional evidence for this, NATO just finished one of the largest article five exercises since the Cold War ( linkI could actually go into much more detail on this, as this is only skimming the surface of the issue, but as pretty much any foreign policy expert has said, Trump's position is ignorant and ludicrous. It is interesting to see that a large part of Trump's strategy is to present issues as extremely basic or simple, pointing out obvious flaws that could clearly be fixed. By being the guy to relay this message, people come to have a lot of faith in him and see him as the guy with answers. And he's not only the guy with answers, he's the guy communicating issues in a clear, concise way that uneducated people can easily understand. They are gross oversimplifications which are usually also incorrect, but it gets the job done.
He knows his audience well. Most people don't want to listen to matters of FP that they don't want to care about and to debate policy they know very little about. In the US, it's more pragmatic just to toss out talking points and talk about freedom.
|
In other news, Trump is not as rich as he seems.
The gist is some of his biggest holdings aren't properly accounted for net of debt (morgages) and any liens against them. Also, his actual net income from them is pretty low... so low to the point it's questionable if Trump makes $100m a year (a great amount, but hardly the amount you'd expect for a guy worth 10 figs). Maybe decent assets, tons of debt would be a better descriptor?
|
On March 25 2016 00:01 ticklishmusic wrote:In other news, Trump is not as rich as he seems. Maybe decent assets, tons of debt would be a better descriptor?
Watch out, you might get sued for underrepresenting his net worth.
|
On March 25 2016 00:02 LegalLord wrote:Watch out, you might get sued for underrepresenting his net worth.
He'd have to actually prove he's rich and release his actual docs, which would be a win anyways.
I'd set up a corporation 100% owned by me to provide legal representation, then bill myself $1K an hour for services. He'd lose and I'd ask for legal fees or something.
|
On March 24 2016 23:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If only 'we will never actually know' because I think even Trump is above posting a dick selfie as part of his presidential campaign was an option, I'd place a bet.
If anything, i am pretty sure this places an upper limit to his dick size. If his dick was amazingly large, he would have used pictures of it in his presidential campaign.
|
On March 24 2016 23:55 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 22:22 Toadesstern wrote:On March 24 2016 22:09 Plansix wrote:
As long as we assume the heat death of the universe will happen, he is 100% right. I don’t think buying silver will help, though. wait, isn't that super old and people think it's doing the exact opposite by now expanding way faster than it should resulting in stuff getting colder if anything as things stretch out more and more? Where are people who know their shit about this stuff when you need them~ "heat death" of the universe means death from all energy becoming uniform heat. It implies that the heat is very spread out (ie everything drops to Almost absolute 0) so that is consistent. What you are thinking about is the "Big Crunch" the idea that gravity will eventually pull the universe together and you will have a reverse big bang.
aaaah, thanks o/
Why would you call that heath death though. I guess it's about the heat dying (out) and not death by heat
|
Arizona election scam. Have a feeling Hillary's people are behind it.
|
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton.
|
lol wasn't the AZ governor the one to try cutting costs by closing lots of polling stations?
|
Yes. The state Republicans cut the budget for polling places.
But clearly they were doing it for Clinton, for reasons that will be explained in this reddit thread and three 45 minute youtube videos.
|
And the county with the biggest issues last night -- Maricopa -- is run almost entirely by Republicans. (In fact, there’s only one Democrat serving on the county government, and he’s a Sanders supporter.) Source
It's pretty hilarious that when the mostly Latino and minority areas were most heavily affected Sanders supporters claim foul. I'm pretty sure that if they re-run the election Clinton would gain a few delegates.
|
On March 25 2016 00:46 Plansix wrote:
Yes. The state Republicans cut the budget for polling places.
But clearly they were doing it for Clinton, for reasons that will be explained in this reddit thread and three 45 minute youtube videos.
Honestly, I do think they were doing it for Clinton. For limiting young vote in the general.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
some enlightened and much needed discourse being created by the sanders campaign right here
|
I am glad they have cut through the lies and Clinton’s attempt so slander the GOP in AZ and gotten to the truth. This is some quality stuff.
Seriously, this primary can’t be over soon enough.
|
On March 25 2016 00:50 oneofthem wrote:
some enlightened and much needed discourse being created by the sanders campaign right here
Isn't Mohdoo a Clinton supporter...
I still maintain that you lot are cherry picking from a vocal minority. The problem, and I see this echoed most everywhere, is that this shit happened at all. It's been pointed out that Republican leaders in AZ have done this purposefully, the Voting Rights Act was gutted, etc etc.
Certainly there are some Sanders supporters claiming it was a conspiracy for Clinton - I disagree with them, and I think the vast majority do as well.
There is also the matter of how poorly it was and has been handled by the media (which, I believe, is GH's main argument). I wouldn't say it was necessarily orchestrated to directly help Clinton. But it's foolish to suggest that calling a race for one candidate, claiming 71% of votes are in, while 0 precincts have reported and people are still in line isn't oozing with scumminess.
|
On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton.
Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton.
A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom.
A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie.
The list goes on and on.
|
On March 25 2016 01:03 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 00:50 oneofthem wrote:
some enlightened and much needed discourse being created by the sanders campaign right here Isn't Mohdoo a Clinton supporter...
I would choose Bernie to be my president (I think our political system would filter him into being decent), but I would not choose him to run in the general election. I think the only way Cruz/Trump wins is blasting the word "socialism" on megaphones until November.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 25 2016 01:03 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 00:50 oneofthem wrote:
some enlightened and much needed discourse being created by the sanders campaign right here Isn't Mohdoo a Clinton supporter... I still maintain that you lot are cherry picking from a vocal minority. The problem, and I see this echoed most everywhere, is that this shit happened at all. It's been pointed out that Republican leaders in AZ have done this purposefully, the Voting Rights Act was gutted, etc etc. Certainly there are some Sanders supporters claiming it was a conspiracy for Clinton - I disagree with them, and I think the vast majority do as well. There is also the matter of how poorly it was and has been handled by the media (which, I believe, is GH's main argument). I wouldn't say it was necessarily orchestrated to directly help Clinton. But it's foolish to suggest that calling a race for one candidate, claiming 71% of votes are in, while 0 precincts have reported and people are still in line isn't oozing with scumminess. problem is the bernie campaign is attracting a whole lot of conspiracy types and these are often the vocal minority with high potential to misinform the rest of the in-group, composed of easily influenced voters. (shared antagonism makes the group less critical of messages in the same tone)
you have a self radicalization within the bernie campaign that goes well beyond 'passion for the issues.'
but anyway, i wasn't talking about mohdoo obviously
|
On March 25 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:03 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 25 2016 00:50 oneofthem wrote:
some enlightened and much needed discourse being created by the sanders campaign right here Isn't Mohdoo a Clinton supporter... I would choose Bernie to be my president (I think our political system would filter him into being decent), but I would not choose him to run in the general election. I think the only way Cruz/Trump wins is blasting the word "socialism" on megaphones until November.
He still has way better chance than Clinton to face Trump. Granted, Trump will chew out both Sanders or Clinton, but Clinton has way more controversial history / bad decisions that Trump will just destroy her on. The worst Trump can do to Sanders is his comment on Cuba / framing him as a socialist, but that's about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
