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.
I don't know if it's sad or funny. I mean, is anyone THAT stupid?
I don't think cultists are stupid per say, just very vulnerable people. The same can't be said for the elites entering these societies.
Woooooshhhh
that is the sound of his post going right over your head.
No the guy who send the email is not a cultist, he is a normal person making a job. The sad/funny & definitely stupid people are those who can not see a joke among colleagues if it bit them in the face.
No the sad and stupid people are the ones that thought Trump was seriously telling Russia to hack Clinton
And now some Whataboutism from Zeo, rather than accepting the article he posted is deeply stupid.
I posted a wikileaks email taken from DNC servers. I could link an article from from Alex jones where he says the moon orbits the Earth, does that mean its not true?
wow its good as a white noise machine AND a portable altar for small animal sacrifices! and when you're not using it for either, you can use it for internet!
Mother of service member booed over Khan question at Pence rally By MATTHEW NUSSBAUM 08/01/16 07:27 PM EDT Updated 08/02/16 12:45 AM EDT CARSON CITY, Nevada — The woman, in a quiet voice, stood before the crowd of hundreds at a town hall-style event here with Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and announced that her son serves in the Air Force. The crowd applauded.
But then the woman said, “Time and time again, [Donald] Trump has disrespected our nation’s armed forces and veterans. And his disrespect for Mr. Khan … ”
The reaction of the crowd was immediate and fierce, drowning out her words.
The crowd began to boo as she tried to get through her question. The woman, who was subsequently identified as Catherine Byrne of Carson City, continued to speak through the jeers.
“Why are you here?” one woman shouted as the boos rained down.
But, over the boos and taunts, Byrne continued to speak.
“You’ve got a son in the military, how do you tolerate this disrespect?” she asked Pence.
Finally, after allowing the boos to continue for about 10 seconds, Pence moved to quiet the crowd.
“That’s OK,” he said. Trump's running mate then repeated a line he deployed when confronted by protesters in Ohio last week: “That's what freedom looks like, and that's what freedom sounds like.”
Pence responded by praising the fallen Capt. Humayun Khan and his family. Khan's parents, Khizr and Ghazala, have been in the news since speaking last week at the Democratic National Convention and finding themselves criticized by Trump.
“Capt. Khan is an American hero and we honor him and honor his family,” he said. “The story of Capt. Khan is an incredibly inspiring story.”
But Pence went on to defend Trump.
“I have never been around someone more devoted to the armed forces of this country,” Pence said of Trump. There is “no one more devoted to the veterans in this country.”
He then moved on to saying he and Trump would work to reform the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Speaking later, Byrne said her son is Staff Sgt. Raymond T. Harmon of the U.S. Air Force. She said Harmon "is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf. He has been serving in the military since 2008."
She said: "It was supposed to be a town-hall-style event."
Denise Martinez, 57, said she had been among those booing Byrne. She admired how Pence handled the situation.
“I thought he handled it really, really well,” she said. “Looking back, I think I would’ve taken the high road.”
“He handled it the right way, the way I wish Trump would have,” she added.
Other audience members were less forgiving.
Barbara Weisenthal, 56, said she was among those booing and that Khizr Khan did not have the “right” to say what he did about Trump at the convention. His speech “was almost like slander,” she said.
Of Byrne who asked the question, Weisenthal said it was “probably not the best place to do that.”
Jack Christenson, himself a veteran, said Byrne may have had the right to ask her question, but not “to violate everyone else’s rights,” which he said she did by speaking out at the event.
“She was claiming that Trump was somehow insulting the veterans,” said Roen Horn, 29. He called that idea “a bunch of crap.”
“She was politicizing the veterans,” she said. “She had an agenda.”
At a rally in Reno later Monday, Pence went out of his way to praise Capt. Khan.
“Captain Humayun Khan is an American hero,” Pence said to applause, as a man in the audience shouted: “Yes he is!”
“And Captain Khan and his family, like all Gold Star families, should always be cherished by all the people of the United States,” Pence said. He went on to praise the fallen Marine Brandon Dewey, who was killed in Iraq in 2006 and whose parents were present at the rally.
But he also took aim at the media coverage surrounding Khan’s family, and what he described as insufficient attention to the Benghazi victims’ families.
“I want to say from my heart as the father of a United States Marine, I understand — I understand and appreciate the attention being paid to Captain Khan’s family,” he said. “What I don’t understand is why the media maligned and continues to ignore the grieving mother of fallen Air Force veteran and diplomat Sean Smith” who was killed in the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Smith’s mother, Patricia Smith, spoke at the Republican National Convention.
“Let’s demand that the national media listen to and honor all of the families of the fallen,” he said.
On August 02 2016 22:54 ShoCkeyy wrote: Zeo you obviously couldn't tell the sarcasm in that email... /s
And you guys have just learned a valuable lesson about people believing what they want to believe about candidates. Believing Trump was not being sarcastic about the Russians hacking Clinton's email is the same as believing Clinton sacrifices animals to Moloch based on that email.
You just can't read sarcasm when you are being biased can you?
edit: And lol at the people shitposting up the thread, you just proved my point.
No, no one actually think Trump was serious about calling for Russian hacking. It's not exactly sarcastic either, it's just being a dumb arse. Which is fine, of course, unless you are running for THE PRESIDENT.
North Dakota on Monday became the latest state to have its voter identification law blocked by a federal court, adding to a string of recent rulings across the US on the grounds that such measures disenfranchise poor and minority voters.
North Dakota joined North Carolina and Wisconsin, where voter-ID restrictions were struck down by federal courts on Friday, victories for advocates who claim the measures are an attempt to suppress voters who tend to cast ballots for Democrats.
Seven Native American voters filed a federal law suit against North Dakota claiming measures passed by the Republican-led legislature in 2013 and 2015 are unconstitutional and violate the US Voting Rights Act.
The laws added restrictions to the types of identification voters can use at polling places and banned “fail-safe” provisions allowing them to vote without the required identification in certain circumstances.
US district judge Daniel Hovland issued a preliminary injunction on Monday against North Dakota’s law, writing in his ruling that the law adds “substantial and disproportionate burdens” for Native American voters compared to other voters in the state.
“No eligible voter, regardless of their station in life, should be denied the opportunity to vote,” he wrote.
Hovland pointed to several statistics in his ruling that showed Native Americans, especially those who live without a car or far from a driver’s license site, would be more affected by the laws than non-Native Americans.
On August 02 2016 11:38 GoTuNk! wrote: Free college is the worse idea ever. For starters there is no free anything, someone else is paying for it. Secondly, it's just another step in the way to socialism.
All it does is create even more useless degrees and keep raising the prices of education because of the endless demand created by the state.
Surely the solution then will become that the mighty state will have to regulate courses available/and or prices. Later, this will not seem enough, and the government will acquire the universities all together.
Edit: This is how they are ruining my country atm, btw.
You didn't make an argument here. Firstly, nobody thinks that free means literally provided by God free of charge, they mean free at the point of delivery. Obviously it'd be paid for by taxes, people who want free college know that what they want is higher taxes to fund government provided college. Surely you're not stupid enough to think everyone believes that government services and government taxes have no relationship and that you're blowing our minds by pointing out that taxes pay for services.
Secondly, we like socialism, that's not a bad thing, socialism has been working pretty fucking well for us so far. You can't just say "but socialism!" and end the argument there when the majority of the richest and most successful countries in the world, including the United States, have large parts of their economy within the public sector.
Roads are currently underfunded, infrastructure is currently underfunded, we can barely get enough taxes to keep our cities from falling into despair--and somehow an expensive and optional service will be affordable... just because?
No matter what you say actual taxes is, you need to be collecting the taxes for it to matter.
You're assuming for some reason that the publicly funded education won't eat into the money currently being thrown at the private system. It's a bad assumption. Take the British NHS for example. It costs about $2,400 per person in the UK. If you were to propose an increase of taxes of $2,400 per person in the US for government healthcare it'd probably get rejected. And yet the US already spends $10,000 per person on healthcare. What you'd actually be offering would be a $7,600 reduction in expenditure and while taxes may go up there would be an increase in paychecks as private insurance benefits were phased out for their cash equivalents, more than offsetting the taxes. The gross inefficiency of the private system means that the replacement, even if funded through taxes, actually makes people richer.
Also "but my roads" is not a viable counterargument unless you're actually suggesting we do something about the roads. And we should. But there is money for both. The United States is not a poor country. If you're really upset about those roads there are cuts elsewhere that can be made.
Roads are not the only thing underfunded in this country. There's a lot of shit that are currently underfunded. They are underfunded because people actively and successfully fight back against expenditures all the time. The stuff we do spend a lot on (military for example) are things that can be career ending for politicians to suggest we cut. Wherein lies the problem in the US--we do not even pay for the things we have right now, let alone the things people keep asking for to be free.
Roads was just one example--most of america's infrastructure has the same issues. The Flint crisis did not happen in a vacuum. The levees issue during Katrina did not happen in a vacuum, underfunded public schools did not happen in a vacuum, the US has a lot of programs that needs a tonne more money and the more you strain the system with massive free programs the more likely you are to break the rest of the country.
Is it doable? Sure, but sacrifices will have to be made.
On August 02 2016 23:05 ragz_gt wrote: No, no one actually think Trump was serious about calling for Russian hacking. It's not exactly sarcastic either, it's just being a dumb arse. Which is fine, of course, unless you are running for THE PRESIDENT.
He's made so many other absurd claims and was serious about them (e.g., the wall, banning Muslims, etc.), it wouldn't even be remotely surprising to me if he was serious about wanting Russia to hack the Democrats.
On August 02 2016 23:05 ragz_gt wrote: No, no one actually think Trump was serious about calling for Russian hacking. It's not exactly sarcastic either, it's just being a dumb arse. Which is fine, of course, unless you are running for THE PRESIDENT.
He's made so many other absurd claims and was serious about them (e.g., the wall, banning Muslims, etc.), it wouldn't even be remotely surprising to me if he was serious about wanting Russia to hack the Democrats.
He didn't ask them to hack Hillary, he asked if they had found the other emails that were missing when they hacked Hillary. There is a (small) difference.
On August 02 2016 11:38 GoTuNk! wrote: Free college is the worse idea ever. For starters there is no free anything, someone else is paying for it. Secondly, it's just another step in the way to socialism.
All it does is create even more useless degrees and keep raising the prices of education because of the endless demand created by the state.
Surely the solution then will become that the mighty state will have to regulate courses available/and or prices. Later, this will not seem enough, and the government will acquire the universities all together.
Edit: This is how they are ruining my country atm, btw.
You didn't make an argument here. Firstly, nobody thinks that free means literally provided by God free of charge, they mean free at the point of delivery. Obviously it'd be paid for by taxes, people who want free college know that what they want is higher taxes to fund government provided college. Surely you're not stupid enough to think everyone believes that government services and government taxes have no relationship and that you're blowing our minds by pointing out that taxes pay for services.
Secondly, we like socialism, that's not a bad thing, socialism has been working pretty fucking well for us so far. You can't just say "but socialism!" and end the argument there when the majority of the richest and most successful countries in the world, including the United States, have large parts of their economy within the public sector.
Roads are currently underfunded, infrastructure is currently underfunded, we can barely get enough taxes to keep our cities from falling into despair--and somehow an expensive and optional service will be affordable... just because?
No matter what you say actual taxes is, you need to be collecting the taxes for it to matter.
You're assuming for some reason that the publicly funded education won't eat into the money currently being thrown at the private system. It's a bad assumption. Take the British NHS for example. It costs about $2,400 per person in the UK. If you were to propose an increase of taxes of $2,400 per person in the US for government healthcare it'd probably get rejected. And yet the US already spends $10,000 per person on healthcare. What you'd actually be offering would be a $7,600 reduction in expenditure and while taxes may go up there would be an increase in paychecks as private insurance benefits were phased out for their cash equivalents, more than offsetting the taxes. The gross inefficiency of the private system means that the replacement, even if funded through taxes, actually makes people richer.
Also "but my roads" is not a viable counterargument unless you're actually suggesting we do something about the roads. And we should. But there is money for both. The United States is not a poor country. If you're really upset about those roads there are cuts elsewhere that can be made.
Roads are not the only thing underfunded in this country. There's a lot of shit that are currently underfunded. They are underfunded because people actively and successfully fight back against expenditures all the time. The stuff we do spend a lot on (military for example) are things that can be career ending for politicians to suggest we cut. Wherein lies the problem in the US--we do not even pay for the things we have right now, let alone the things people keep asking for to be free.
Roads was just one example--most of america's infrastructure has the same issues. The Flint crisis did not happen in a vacuum. The levees issue during Katrina did not happen in a vacuum, underfunded public schools did not happen in a vacuum, the US has a lot of programs that needs a tonne more money and the more you strain the system with massive free programs the more likely you are to break the rest of the country.
Is it doable? Sure, but sacrifices will have to be made.
So take a couple hundred billion from the Military, tax wall st trades and legalize marijuana allowing the states to collect tax on sales and so forth. The poorest in the country such as Mississippi would find an extra hundred million or so to fix their shit systems perhaps.
On August 02 2016 23:05 ragz_gt wrote: No, no one actually think Trump was serious about calling for Russian hacking. It's not exactly sarcastic either, it's just being a dumb arse. Which is fine, of course, unless you are running for THE PRESIDENT.
He's made so many other absurd claims and was serious about them (e.g., the wall, banning Muslims, etc.), it wouldn't even be remotely surprising to me if he was serious about wanting Russia to hack the Democrats.
He didn't ask them to hack Hillary, he asked if they had found the other emails that were missing when they hacked Hillary. There is a (small) difference.