|
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 April 05 2016 10:39 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 07:36 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:24 oneofthem wrote:
there are actual electronic evidence involved. this is not even challenged by either the activist at issue or the sanders campaign. rather they have offered excuses and spin.
if you insist on her neutrality you are doing so in the face of clear evidence to contrary.
like whitedoge defending mao or you defending the neutrality of this lady, mh advice is pick easier fights. seriously stop being so partisan as to defend every sanders ally or every commie. Honey, you can believe that you're standing on evidence all you want. If you can't make it appear you're going to fall flat on your face just like your argument. You don't have to defend every moronic pro-Hillary move either. Her camp says the sky is purple. All the evidence we've had so far says the sky ain't purple. For calibration, do you believe Sanders is going to be the nominee? I started out guessing he had at best a 10% chance. Was up to about 33% by december. I've been viewing him as a 50% chance of winning ever since the first primary. If Hillary hadn't done such a good job keeping a lid on Bernie (mainly keeping him off the TV) she wouldn't have had a chance in this race. Bernie's slowly gotten a trickle down of media exposure and it's showing in his results. If this were an equal race, Bernie would have already won, which surprises me because I was far more cynical about the average democrat around this time last year. I honestly hope that Bernie keeps it up until the end, as Hillary gets more vicious and two faced with her attacks. If Hillary is the face of the DNC, I want it torn apart and I'm willing to vote Trump to get that done. Nobody is happy with either party right now, and both parties are quite obviously interested in giving more power to businesses than to the people who work for them. This is the exact opposite of what a government should do. In capitalism, government is a way for people to organize against the power of monopoly. "Nobody is happy with either party right now" Obama is at >50% approval rating. The majority of the country is pleased with our executive leadership.
Republicans aren't happy with the GOP and Reddit hates Obama because he endorsed the lady running against a bernista
|
On April 05 2016 11:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 10:39 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On April 05 2016 07:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 07:36 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:24 oneofthem wrote:
there are actual electronic evidence involved. this is not even challenged by either the activist at issue or the sanders campaign. rather they have offered excuses and spin.
if you insist on her neutrality you are doing so in the face of clear evidence to contrary.
like whitedoge defending mao or you defending the neutrality of this lady, mh advice is pick easier fights. seriously stop being so partisan as to defend every sanders ally or every commie. Honey, you can believe that you're standing on evidence all you want. If you can't make it appear you're going to fall flat on your face just like your argument. You don't have to defend every moronic pro-Hillary move either. Her camp says the sky is purple. All the evidence we've had so far says the sky ain't purple. For calibration, do you believe Sanders is going to be the nominee? I started out guessing he had at best a 10% chance. Was up to about 33% by december. I've been viewing him as a 50% chance of winning ever since the first primary. If Hillary hadn't done such a good job keeping a lid on Bernie (mainly keeping him off the TV) she wouldn't have had a chance in this race. Bernie's slowly gotten a trickle down of media exposure and it's showing in his results. If this were an equal race, Bernie would have already won, which surprises me because I was far more cynical about the average democrat around this time last year. I honestly hope that Bernie keeps it up until the end, as Hillary gets more vicious and two faced with her attacks. If Hillary is the face of the DNC, I want it torn apart and I'm willing to vote Trump to get that done. Nobody is happy with either party right now, and both parties are quite obviously interested in giving more power to businesses than to the people who work for them. This is the exact opposite of what a government should do. In capitalism, government is a way for people to organize against the power of monopoly. "Nobody is happy with either party right now" Obama is at >50% approval rating. The majority of the country is pleased with our executive leadership. Republicans aren't happy with the GOP and Reddit hates Obama because he endorsed the lady running against a bernista
DWS has done a lot more than "run against a bernista" Some of us aren't fans of her supporting predatory lending for instance. So Him endorsing her follows suit.
|
On April 05 2016 11:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 10:39 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On April 05 2016 07:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 07:36 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:24 oneofthem wrote:
there are actual electronic evidence involved. this is not even challenged by either the activist at issue or the sanders campaign. rather they have offered excuses and spin.
if you insist on her neutrality you are doing so in the face of clear evidence to contrary.
like whitedoge defending mao or you defending the neutrality of this lady, mh advice is pick easier fights. seriously stop being so partisan as to defend every sanders ally or every commie. Honey, you can believe that you're standing on evidence all you want. If you can't make it appear you're going to fall flat on your face just like your argument. You don't have to defend every moronic pro-Hillary move either. Her camp says the sky is purple. All the evidence we've had so far says the sky ain't purple. For calibration, do you believe Sanders is going to be the nominee? I started out guessing he had at best a 10% chance. Was up to about 33% by december. I've been viewing him as a 50% chance of winning ever since the first primary. If Hillary hadn't done such a good job keeping a lid on Bernie (mainly keeping him off the TV) she wouldn't have had a chance in this race. Bernie's slowly gotten a trickle down of media exposure and it's showing in his results. If this were an equal race, Bernie would have already won, which surprises me because I was far more cynical about the average democrat around this time last year. I honestly hope that Bernie keeps it up until the end, as Hillary gets more vicious and two faced with her attacks. If Hillary is the face of the DNC, I want it torn apart and I'm willing to vote Trump to get that done. Nobody is happy with either party right now, and both parties are quite obviously interested in giving more power to businesses than to the people who work for them. This is the exact opposite of what a government should do. In capitalism, government is a way for people to organize against the power of monopoly. "Nobody is happy with either party right now" Obama is at >50% approval rating. The majority of the country is pleased with our executive leadership. Republicans aren't happy with the GOP and Reddit hates Obama because he endorsed the lady running against a bernista
I got into a big argument with a Bernie crew Facebook friend with me taking the Hillary/DNC/Obama side. She said "Both ACA and Dodd-Frank are examples of "hey, at least it's better than what the GOP is offering you!" We're done settling. And Bernie, unlike the other so-called liberals, actually gets bills passed working WITH the GOP."
I gotta wonder if this is a widespread belief. Do the Bernie peeps really believe that nonsense?
|
MADISON, Wis. — Ted Cruz on Monday warned Republicans against drafting an alternative nominee at this summer’s national convention, hoping to shoot down the possibility even as speculation mounts that the party establishment is looking for another option.
“It ain’t going to happen,” the Texas senator insisted to reporters here before speaking at a town hall with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “If it did, the people would quite rightly revolt. If Washington said, we had elections in 50 states but we, the dealmakers, don’t care what the people voted for, we have someone else who’s going to go along and get along and keep the cronyism going, the voters would naturally say, ‘To heck with you, we’re staying home.’”
Cruz continued, “Are some folks in Washington foolish enough to do that anyway? Probably. But they can’t do it. If over 80 percent of delegates are Cruz delegates [or Donald] Trump delegates, under what universe do a thousand Trump delegates or a thousand Cruz delegates go vote for some uber-Washington lobbyist who hasn’t been on the ballot? That’s simply not going to happen.”
Cruz’s comments, among his strongest to date on the subject, come amid Washington chatter about the possibility that House Speaker Paul Ryan could win the nomination if no other candidate clinches the title during early rounds of convention balloting. Ryan has insisted he doesn’t want the nomination.
Source
|
A Trump/Cruz ticket against Ryan would make me so happy.
|
On April 04 2016 14:32 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Mutually refraining from injury, violence, and exploitation, placing your will on par with the other's: in a certain, crude, sense, these practices can become good manners between individuals when the right conditions are present (namely, that the individuals have genuinely similar quantities of force and measures of value, and belong together within a single body).
But as soon as this principle is taken any further, and maybe even held to be the fundamental principle of society, it immediately shows itself for what it is: the will to negate life, the principle of disintegration and decay. Here we must think things through thoroughly, and ward off any sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially a process of appropriating, injuring, overpowering the alien and the weaker, oppressing, being harsh, imposing your own form, incorporating, at the least, the very least, exploiting, — but what is the point of always using words that have been stamped with slanderous intentions from time immemorial?
Even a body within which (as we presupposed earlier) particular individuals treat each other as equal (which happens in every healthy aristocracy): if this body is living and not dying, it will have to treat other bodies in just those ways that the individuals it contains refrain from treating each other. It will have to be the embodiment of will to power, it will want to grow, spread, win dominance, — not out of any morality and immorality, but because it is alive, and because life is precisely will to power.
But there is no issue on which the base European consciousness is less willing to be instructed than this; these days, people everywhere are lost in rapturous enthusiasms, even in scientific disguise, about a future state of society where "the exploitative character" will fall away: — to my ears, that sounds as if someone is promising to invent a life that dispenses with all organic functions. "Exploitation" does not belong to a corrupted or imperfect, primitive society: it belongs to the essence of being alive as a fundamental organic function; it is a result of genuine will to power, which is just the will of life. — Although this is an innovation at the level of theory, at the level of reality, it is the primal fact of all history. Let us be honest with ourselves to this extent at least!
-- Beyond Good & Evil
anyway im gonna start a revolution see u guys in a few years
This is a good passage.
|
we tried to go full will to power once, would not recommend
|
On April 05 2016 08:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 08:00 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 05 2016 07:54 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
Regardless of motive, leaking the contact information for Clinton delegates is a problem. There is pretty clear evidence she would have a motive for doing so, though it's possible (though I would say improbable) she did it on accident/ was incompetent. I want to see how things shake out between this and information that was supposedly sent out saying delegates need not attend. I have heard, despite shenanigans, the change in delegates might actually be 1 or even 0.
The Clinton campaign has been fighting voter suppression since June of last year BTW. They've filed suits in Ohio, Wisconsin and a few other states.
Also, the sky is indeed occasionally purple. If you have not seen a purple sky, you are missing out. Should have picked a better color. Or maybe another analogy, now that I think of it I've seen the sky in a lot of different colors. Do you really want to argue about the security implications of possibly poor email practices? So your argument is that the sky is purple once in a blue moon? (I'm guessing you're lumping pink into purple as well, because purple is probably less than 1%). Previous Secs used personal emails as well. Colin Powell and close aides to Condy Rice, iirc. This whole affair really just raises the need for a reform in how we classify information, because overclassification is a rampant problem in the government (which I've mentioned previously). Its really an issue of needing more ammunition against someone so you get mad at them for doing what everyone who had their jobs before them already did.
Well, that's what I was subtly trying to imply.
|
On April 05 2016 12:49 Nyxisto wrote:
we tried to go full will to power once, would not recommend
maybe u should try someone who reads the source material rather than the politicized bastardization by the sister
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Probably involves selective reporting. The rest will get out there soon.
|
On April 05 2016 12:10 Mohdoo wrote:
A Trump/Cruz ticket against Ryan would make me so happy.
Unlikely, the only person who hates Trump more than Cruz at this point is Rand Paul. Surprisingly, relentlessly insulting and belittling your opponents results in only one of them supporting you-the one governing a state you own a massive casino in.
Cruz would probably rather run 3rd(4th?) party on his own.
|
On April 05 2016 12:49 Nyxisto wrote:
we tried to go full will to power once, would not recommend
why not? it actually was a triumph of the will!
|
On April 05 2016 10:39 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 07:36 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:24 oneofthem wrote:
there are actual electronic evidence involved. this is not even challenged by either the activist at issue or the sanders campaign. rather they have offered excuses and spin.
if you insist on her neutrality you are doing so in the face of clear evidence to contrary.
like whitedoge defending mao or you defending the neutrality of this lady, mh advice is pick easier fights. seriously stop being so partisan as to defend every sanders ally or every commie. Honey, you can believe that you're standing on evidence all you want. If you can't make it appear you're going to fall flat on your face just like your argument. You don't have to defend every moronic pro-Hillary move either. Her camp says the sky is purple. All the evidence we've had so far says the sky ain't purple. For calibration, do you believe Sanders is going to be the nominee? I started out guessing he had at best a 10% chance. Was up to about 33% by december. I've been viewing him as a 50% chance of winning ever since the first primary. If Hillary hadn't done such a good job keeping a lid on Bernie (mainly keeping him off the TV) she wouldn't have had a chance in this race. Bernie's slowly gotten a trickle down of media exposure and it's showing in his results. If this were an equal race, Bernie would have already won, which surprises me because I was far more cynical about the average democrat around this time last year. I honestly hope that Bernie keeps it up until the end, as Hillary gets more vicious and two faced with her attacks. If Hillary is the face of the DNC, I want it torn apart and I'm willing to vote Trump to get that done. Nobody is happy with either party right now, and both parties are quite obviously interested in giving more power to businesses than to the people who work for them. This is the exact opposite of what a government should do. In capitalism, government is a way for people to organize against the power of monopoly. "Nobody is happy with either party right now" Obama is at >50% approval rating. The majority of the country is pleased with our executive leadership.
And Obama is doing exactly nothing in terms of legislation because we have a lame congress. People approve of what little he's done (understandable, he hasn't had the chance to do much). Congress (you know, the other 535 people who legislate?) has an 11% approval rating according to the first google result.
People are not happy.
|
I don't know how the man does it. Less than a year of butting heads and I already think some people are lost causes, he's been saying stuff like this and being right about it for decades.
|
On April 05 2016 13:41 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 10:39 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On April 05 2016 07:48 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 07:36 Jormundr wrote:On April 05 2016 07:24 oneofthem wrote:
there are actual electronic evidence involved. this is not even challenged by either the activist at issue or the sanders campaign. rather they have offered excuses and spin.
if you insist on her neutrality you are doing so in the face of clear evidence to contrary.
like whitedoge defending mao or you defending the neutrality of this lady, mh advice is pick easier fights. seriously stop being so partisan as to defend every sanders ally or every commie. Honey, you can believe that you're standing on evidence all you want. If you can't make it appear you're going to fall flat on your face just like your argument. You don't have to defend every moronic pro-Hillary move either. Her camp says the sky is purple. All the evidence we've had so far says the sky ain't purple. For calibration, do you believe Sanders is going to be the nominee? I started out guessing he had at best a 10% chance. Was up to about 33% by december. I've been viewing him as a 50% chance of winning ever since the first primary. If Hillary hadn't done such a good job keeping a lid on Bernie (mainly keeping him off the TV) she wouldn't have had a chance in this race. Bernie's slowly gotten a trickle down of media exposure and it's showing in his results. If this were an equal race, Bernie would have already won, which surprises me because I was far more cynical about the average democrat around this time last year. I honestly hope that Bernie keeps it up until the end, as Hillary gets more vicious and two faced with her attacks. If Hillary is the face of the DNC, I want it torn apart and I'm willing to vote Trump to get that done. Nobody is happy with either party right now, and both parties are quite obviously interested in giving more power to businesses than to the people who work for them. This is the exact opposite of what a government should do. In capitalism, government is a way for people to organize against the power of monopoly. "Nobody is happy with either party right now" Obama is at >50% approval rating. The majority of the country is pleased with our executive leadership. And Obama is doing exactly nothing in terms of legislation because we have a lame congress. People approve of what little he's done (understandable, he hasn't had the chance to do much). Congress (you know, the other 535 people who legislate?) has an 11% approval rating according to the first google result. People are not happy.
But but Obama is a dictator tyrant ruling firm with his iron pen and constantly forcing all this illegal shit on us with executive action!
|
Obama has been the best president imo to come out in decades...
|
On April 05 2016 14:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Obama has been the best president imo to come out in decades...
You're joking right? He signed a bill into law, the ACA, that no Republican voted for, destroying any chance he had of uniting the country.
|
On April 05 2016 14:50 Ravianna26 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 14:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Obama has been the best president imo to come out in decades... You're joking right? He signed a bill into law, the ACA, that no Republican voted for, destroying any chance he had of uniting the country.
They suggested 99.9999999% of the revisions that ended up in it, then voted against it. They had no intention of playing ball from the start, he was just dumb enough to believe them when they said they would.
|
On April 05 2016 14:50 Ravianna26 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 14:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Obama has been the best president imo to come out in decades... You're joking right? He signed a bill into law, the ACA, that no Republican voted for, destroying any chance he had of uniting the country.
The entire Democratic party was behind ACA. It was a good idea then, and has been more successful than anticipated. That Republicans would have revolted over any other progressive agenda item that collected taxes and spent money on something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
