|
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 November 05 2016 02:34 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 02:20 a_flayer wrote:
Can I ask if you think she might make the mistake of having certain foreign leaders that she doesn't agree with assassinated while she is in office, resulting in something she hadn't anticipated? Like, for example, killing Kim Yong Un or something (doesn't seem entirely out of the question) which somehow escalates into a war with China? Or killing Ahmadinejad (or his replacement, or the one after that) on behalf of the Saudis and thereby pulling Russia into it?
We know it only takes 5 weeks... The assumption that "pulling Russia into it" results in war with Russia is predicated on Putin being stupid enough to take things that far. Again, both of them know what the stakes are. Someone's going to lose face, but outright war just isn't a very likely outcome without some incredibly drastic and unlikely things happening.
While I definitely agree that it should be easy to avoid a full-blown war ("just don't start fighting"), people are capable of making some incredibly stupendous decisions (such as voting for Trump). And you say Putin would have to be stupid, but he might be faced with not having a choice in the matter, similar to what some (or at least one, retired) US generals were saying when he took Crimea.
Anyway, I'm just worried because I spent the past day watching/listening to videos like this and I'm seeing a rather frightening amount of similarities between then and now:
The Sleepwalkers: Lessons from 1914 (Salzburg Global Seminar)
Margaret MacMillan: European Society and War 1814-1914 (Institute for Strategic Dialogue)
How Europe Went to War in 1914 (Maastricht University).
It's been another slow day at work.
|
Only the privileged wants to look at low unemployment, high growth in industry, the most progressive healthcare movement in american history, and be like "a woman wants to keep that going while making schools cheaper, minimum wage higher, and keep helping minorities? Nah..."
|
On November 05 2016 02:34 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 02:20 a_flayer wrote:
Can I ask if you think she might make the mistake of having certain foreign leaders that she doesn't agree with assassinated while she is in office, resulting in something she hadn't anticipated? Like, for example, killing Kim Yong Un or something (doesn't seem entirely out of the question) which somehow escalates into a war with China? Or killing Ahmadinejad (or his replacement, or the one after that) on behalf of the Saudis and thereby pulling Russia into it?
We know it only takes 5 weeks... The assumption that "pulling Russia into it" results in war with Russia is predicated on Putin being stupid enough to take things that far. Again, both of them know what the stakes are. Someone's going to lose face, but outright war just isn't a very likely outcome without some incredibly drastic and unlikely things happening.
proxy war in Syria.
|
And roll back gay marriage, coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and financial regulations put in place in the last 8 years.
Edit: That is my favorite part about Trump fans, that they claim he will clean out Washington and end special interest influence. But he has said he want to remove the election contribution cap.
|
On November 05 2016 02:20 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 02:06 TheYango wrote:On November 05 2016 01:24 ZeaL. wrote:
I fucking hate Trump but I could imagine myself as a conservative who would vote for Trump with the belief that he will simply be a figurehead. Pence and the legislature will run the country and while he posts conservative SC justices and runs around bloviating to the base. The curious thing about conservatives that hold this position is that they have to recognize that their position is also irreconcilable with a large component of Trump's base--those who view Trump as an anti-establishment candidate and detest the GOP old guard. Getting what they want for the next 4 years isn't going to make those people go away, and they need to answer to those people in a better way than "suck up to Trump + business as usual". On November 05 2016 01:52 biology]major wrote:
While you guys are drinking the 'trump is going to bring the apocalypse' kool aid, realize that clinton and Putin have a personal deep seated animosity towards each other. This combined with her poor judgement and having a chip on her shoulder for being a woman president and to be "strong", can easily result in war. This is before considering the alleged interference in the election by Russia, so you can bet she has a personal agenda on top of all of the above. Carry on Clinton is not stupid. She is hawkish, is inimical toward Russia, has something to prove, and has displayed poor judgment in complex FP scenarios in the past. But she also acts rationally and has sufficient knowledge of the risks. I expect her to make mistakes again in complex FP scenarios. I do not expect her to do obviously stupid things because that's simply not within her range. Outright war with Russia falls in that category of "obviously stupid things". Can I ask if you think she might make the mistake of having certain foreign leaders that she doesn't agree with assassinated while she is in office, resulting in something she hadn't anticipated? Like, for example, killing Kim Yong Un or something (doesn't seem entirely out of the question) which somehow escalates into a war with China? Or killing Ahmadinejad (or his replacement, or the one after that) on behalf of the Saudis and thereby pulling Russia into it? We know it only takes 5 weeks...
Sigh,
Yes Hillary is totaly going to assassinate random foreign leaders who beat her at scribble. All the while fighting with an actual bear to piss off Putin and mud wrestling with Miley Cyrus.
Seriously your hilariously garbage hypothetical starts with Hillary openly assassinating political leaders so you can pull out another 'Putin is great' story.
A man who has actually had political leaders assassinated.
Why would anyone want to Kill Kim Yong Un? He's a no-body half the world away who cant hope to ever threaten the US.
And Ahmadinejad? Did you miss the part where the US recently signed a deal with Iran? The part where relations are improving between the countries? Or how about the part where Ahmadinejad is not the anti-US one. Their religious leader is the one you want.
|
On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2016 23:25 Uldridge wrote:
Will this have been the most drama filled election in US history?
It's just astounding howmuch shit keeps hitting the fan every moment.. Truly incredible I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest.
Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america?
And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America?
|
On November 05 2016 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 02:20 a_flayer wrote:On November 05 2016 02:06 TheYango wrote:On November 05 2016 01:24 ZeaL. wrote:
I fucking hate Trump but I could imagine myself as a conservative who would vote for Trump with the belief that he will simply be a figurehead. Pence and the legislature will run the country and while he posts conservative SC justices and runs around bloviating to the base. The curious thing about conservatives that hold this position is that they have to recognize that their position is also irreconcilable with a large component of Trump's base--those who view Trump as an anti-establishment candidate and detest the GOP old guard. Getting what they want for the next 4 years isn't going to make those people go away, and they need to answer to those people in a better way than "suck up to Trump + business as usual". On November 05 2016 01:52 biology]major wrote:
While you guys are drinking the 'trump is going to bring the apocalypse' kool aid, realize that clinton and Putin have a personal deep seated animosity towards each other. This combined with her poor judgement and having a chip on her shoulder for being a woman president and to be "strong", can easily result in war. This is before considering the alleged interference in the election by Russia, so you can bet she has a personal agenda on top of all of the above. Carry on Clinton is not stupid. She is hawkish, is inimical toward Russia, has something to prove, and has displayed poor judgment in complex FP scenarios in the past. But she also acts rationally and has sufficient knowledge of the risks. I expect her to make mistakes again in complex FP scenarios. I do not expect her to do obviously stupid things because that's simply not within her range. Outright war with Russia falls in that category of "obviously stupid things". Can I ask if you think she might make the mistake of having certain foreign leaders that she doesn't agree with assassinated while she is in office, resulting in something she hadn't anticipated? Like, for example, killing Kim Yong Un or something (doesn't seem entirely out of the question) which somehow escalates into a war with China? Or killing Ahmadinejad (or his replacement, or the one after that) on behalf of the Saudis and thereby pulling Russia into it? We know it only takes 5 weeks... Sigh, Yes Hillary is totaly going to assassinate random foreign leaders who beat her at scribble. All the while fighting with an actual bear to piss off Putin and mud wrestling with Miley Cyrus. Seriously your hilariously garbage hypothetical starts with Hillary openly assassinating political leaders so you can pull out another 'Putin is great' story. A man who has actually had political leaders assassinated. Why would anyone want to Kill Kim Yong Un? He's a no-body half the world away who cant hope to ever threaten the US. And Ahmadinejad? Did you miss the part where the US recently signed a deal with Iran? The part where relations are improving between the countries? Or how about the part where Ahmadinejad is not the anti-US one. Their religious leader is the one you want.
You can focus on deconstructing my specific speculative examples or take the concept and apply it to a scenario of your own making that you can believe. Maybe she has some other random guy killed that none of us have ever heard about because he hasn't been in the spotlight yet. It's just that one assassination at the wrong time could have a very bad result, and HRC has repeatedly shown she has some sentiment towards covert actions of that sort.
Also, I never said she would "openly assassinate". It would obviously be a covert action of some sort, but we all know those things get leaked out into the public nowadays. Like Hillary said, some fool would want to take credit for his involvement.
The only thing about Putin that I actually like is his willingness to stand up against the unilateralism of the US and his multi-polar world view (and even then, I only like the concept of it when it is filled with my particular view, I wouldn't presume to know how such a world would play out in his head). He's a scumbag lying bullshitting self-serving politician, just like Hillary.
Also, please note how I am not trying to make you look ridiculous by pulling out Miley or bear wrestling. I mean, seriously can't you just not behave like that? TheYango, the person who I was requesting to comment, had a perfectly reasonable response (incidentally he was sharing a view that many people had back at the start of the 20th century), why not just keep out of it?
|
Looks like Rolling Stone is going to take it in the shitter on that gang rape defamation case.
|
How did they not settle that?
|
On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2016 23:25 Uldridge wrote:
Will this have been the most drama filled election in US history?
It's just astounding howmuch shit keeps hitting the fan every moment.. Truly incredible I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America?
Yes. Are you being purposefully dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment.
Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2016 23:25 Uldridge wrote:
Will this have been the most drama filled election in US history?
It's just astounding howmuch shit keeps hitting the fan every moment.. Truly incredible I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the establishment. Trump on the other hand actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and other labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back.
He's also campaigning on a nostalgic idea of an America that was lost sometime around the civil rights movement for people who really wish things could go back to the way they were then. And he has no idea how to achieve it but fortunately neither do they so they're fine to just follow him into the abyss.
|
On November 05 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Rolling Stone is going to take it in the shitter on that gang rape defamation case.
Justice.
|
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality.
|
On November 05 2016 03:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the establishment. Trump on the other hand actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and other labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. He's also campaigning on a nostalgic idea of an America that was lost sometime around the civil rights movement for people who really wish things could go back to the way they were then. And he has no idea how to achieve it but fortunately neither do they so they're fine to just follow him into the abyss.
The Trumpkins also swim in an alt-reality fed by nonsense from their Trusted Sources. Check out today's Drudge links. All of them are bullshit. But hey, your 55 year old uncle from the hills who used to work until he hurt his back believes every damned word of this without having to click the link.
WIKI WICCAN: PODESTA PRACTICES OCCULT MAGIC
FBI AGENTS SEE 'ANTICHRIST'
ASSANGE: CLINTON, ISIS FUNDED BY SAME MONEY
TERROR THREAT WARNING MONDAY
94,609,000 NOT IN LABOR FORCE
http://www.drudgereport.com/
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality.
Hillary has taken a very active role in her position as First Lady and I do not think that anyone would be wrong to say that she took a role that some would say is akin to that of a politician. Whether or not that is a good thing is up to interpretation (all else held equal, it's a good thing, but I don't think she did a good job). But it's perfectly valid to consider her as a political agent in the Clinton administration.
|
On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2016 23:25 Uldridge wrote:
Will this have been the most drama filled election in US history?
It's just astounding howmuch shit keeps hitting the fan every moment.. Truly incredible I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back.
And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite?
You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes.
But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker.
|
On November 05 2016 03:30 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:26 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again.
We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here.
Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins?
Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed.
A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the establishment. Trump on the other hand actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and other labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. He's also campaigning on a nostalgic idea of an America that was lost sometime around the civil rights movement for people who really wish things could go back to the way they were then. And he has no idea how to achieve it but fortunately neither do they so they're fine to just follow him into the abyss. The Trumpkins also swim in an alt-reality fed by nonsense from their Trusted Sources. Check out today's Drudge links. All of them are bullshit. But hey, your 55 year old uncle from the hills who used to work until he hurt his back believes every damned word of this without having to click the link. WIKI WICCAN: PODESTA PRACTICES OCCULT MAGIC FBI AGENTS SEE 'ANTICHRIST' ASSANGE: CLINTON, ISIS FUNDED BY SAME MONEY TERROR THREAT WARNING MONDAY 94,609,000 NOT IN LABOR FORCE http://www.drudgereport.com/
The fun ones are on Breitbart.
|
On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality.
Because she was arguably the most politically active First Lady that we've ever had. Compare Hillary to Laura Bush. The contrast is striking.
|
On November 05 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality. Hillary has taken a very active role in her position as First Lady and I do not think that anyone would be wrong to say that she took a role that some would say is akin to that of a politician. Whether or not that is a good thing is up to interpretation (all else held equal, it's a good thing, but I don't think she did a good job). But it's perfectly valid to consider her as a political agent in the Clinton administration.
That's an incredible stretch. First ladies have a few pet issues they push, doesn't make them politicians. Are we calling Nancy Reagan the first female president since she ran things during Ronald's second term?
On November 05 2016 03:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Why do people count the 15 years Hillary was married to a politician as being a politician herself? She ran for senate in 2000, before that she didn't hold office. Is Michelle Obama a politician now too? The 30 years meme is so stupid.
Trump hasn't campaigned that he'll attempt to bring those jobs back, he said he WILL bring them back. Which is of course never happening but people are too attached to the past to face reality. Because she was arguably the most politically active First Lady that we've ever had. Compare Hillary to Laura Bush. The contrast is striking.
If you actually believe this then you need to brush up on history. There have been multiple first ladies that essentially ran the country when their husbands were in failing health.
|
On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker.
Well he actually visited the american rust belt. No one has ever done that in the history of do- errr politics. Clearly only Trump cares about the once employed factory workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
