U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Sponsored by Betty Croker's Hamburger Helper)

[Shindig]

You can't really shape a media narrative over someone who shifts so quickly on everything.

[Bartholomert]

Our future Supreme Leader up 2 in Florida, 20% African American support / 40% Hispanic:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292499-poll-trump-holds-narrow-lead-over-clinton-in-florida

Probably up minimum 10~ tbh but still this should shut up the delusional bitter clingers about 'battle ground state polls!!!!'

[GS]

You can't really shape a media narrative over someone who shifts so quickly on everything.

You can, in the context of the downticket races. At some point, the Republicans will cut their losses on Trump and focus on preventing a Democratic landslide in the congressional races.

[Bartholomert]

You can, in the context of the downticket races. At some point, the Republicans will cut their losses on Trump and focus on preventing a Democratic landslide in the congressional races.

He's within the margin of error of the recent PPP poll, nobody is cutting losses. Open your eyes.

[GS]

Give it six weeks.

Clinton's going to walk this, barring "events, dear boy, events".

[mikem]

Farage is joining Trump's rally today in Mississippi. Maybe he will bring back the Whig party.

[mikem]

Lewis This pic from a Trump rally is all for you - enjoy. I really hope there is not a Hillsborough Florida.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/768519825824047104/photo/1

[Lewis]

It's nice to think I'm the go-to Hillsborough person.

[mikem]

Thought it was a nice showing of cross cultural support for the big Farage unveiling.

[Shindig]

Whelp, Farage is backing Trump. Can't wait to see how much money changed hands for that to happen.

[Kikó]

CNN saying trump has backed off the total deportation plan. What a man.

[Disco]

So deporting 10 million people turned out to be slightly impractical, who'd have thunk.

[ItalAussie]

Hard to tell what effect that'll have.

[Kikó]

As long as the wall is being built then all is good.

[phonics]

Katrina Pierson (I can't believe they're still letting her go on TV): ""Trump hasn't changed his position on immigration, he has changed the words that he is saying."

[elth]

Trump's policies don't matter. The people who want to believe he'll deport all the forrins will believe it regardless of what he says, the people who think it's all hot air will think that regardless of what he says.

His words don't matter. He's a feelpinion politician.

[Lewis]

lol at Nigel Farage getting a) major billing off 'The Donald'; b) attacked by the actual next President. Like somebody said on the Twitter, the cleverness of her [dishonest] speech was that every idiot she referred to in it likes nothing more than to go all over the news making their respective holes every deeper, so it does its own leg work.

[Jimmy Floyd]

You have to give him credit for the sheer level of chancing he's managed to pull off.

[phonics]

This bloke is incredible

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqwxHUbWgAAAjm5.jpg

That famous tunnel technology.

[Yevrah]

In fairness to him (and I say that with a heavy heart), isn't the Mexican drug situation so fucked up that an unconventional (read mental) approach might just be worth a shot?

[Pepe]

Because American drug issues are all Mexico's fault. :rolleyes:

[Disco]

There's unconventional and then there's untold billions in initial costs let alone upkeep, and that's when you magically whiff away all of the about a hundred reasons why you wouldn't do it.

[Yeldoow]

There's unconventional and then there's untold billions in initial costs let alone upkeep, and that's when you magically whiff away all of the about a hundred reasons why you wouldn't do it.

Who cares how much it costs? He clearly said Mexico is going to pay for it.

[Yevrah]

The cost probably isn't relevant anyway, given you'd create jobs through building the damn thing.

[Mazuuurk]

Has he ever explained how he's ever going to get Mexico to pay for it? :D

[Yevrah]

That was the best bit. :D

[phonics]

Has he ever explained how he's ever going to get Mexico to pay for it? :D

He basically says they do 50 bil worth of trade with Mexico and he will block that trade unless they agree to pay 15 bil or whatever he pretends it will cost. Forgetting that all that threat does is hurt American companies. It's real dumb.

[Mazuuurk]

Hahaha that's brilliant, so essentially he'll eliminate the reason for a lot of Mexicans to even go to the US in the first place.

In case he does win - I wonder how many Americans will feel like those Brexit voters that in hindsight felt like they shouldn't have actually voted for what they did (i.e. the people who see their vote as a means of making a statement, rather than for it's actual value).

[mikem]

It is heartening to see the Republican leadership rush to his defense. He can get Farage on stage more easily than a Senator. A bit like his outreach tour to minorities by talking to "the blacks" at a virtually all-white crowd in Jackson, Mississippi (check the demographics.)

Cross a desert, ford a river, cross some more desert. Oh, look a ten foot wall. Fuck it, I better go back. Of course, because most illegals now come from China and India it is not like he is playing to stereotypes or anything.

[phonics]

It is heartening to see the Republican leadership rush to his defense. He can get Farage on stage more easily than a Senator. A bit like his outreach tour to minorities by talking to "the blacks" at a virtually all-white crowd in Jackson, Mississippi (check the demographics.)

"the blacks" couldn't show up because they can't leave their house without getting shot. (I'm almost directly quoting him there, what a fucking embarrassment)

[John Arne]

I wonder whether he'll learn from the Chinese mistakes...

https://gyazo.com/1cdd9cbcfcb1fd609c80aba1b93da677.png

[Mazuuurk]

How is that a mistake? Try riding around there with your mongolian cavalry while someone is firing arrows at you.

[Lewis]

I'm not sure why the wall attracts so much lolling. It's not going to be invincible, but it would still be a pretty simple way to increase border protections, and how complicated and expensive is a wall to build (asking that possibly makes it seem less effective to people who want it to be invincible)?

[mikem]

If you live near the border you laugh because people die daily from crossing a desert. They get to the border with little or no supplies left and what are they going to do hop a wall or go back?

That is Az to Texas, may be entirely different in California.

[Jimmy Floyd]

One blast for the star spangled banner, two blasts for little brown people, three blasts for Pepe on his pizza delivery bike.

[Yevrah]

I'm not sure why the wall attracts so much lolling. It's not going to be invincible, but it would still be a pretty simple way to increase border protections, and how complicated and expensive is a wall to build (asking that possibly makes it seem less effective to people who want it to be invincible)?

That's sort of where I am with it.

[Yevrah]

If you live near the border you laugh because people die daily from crossing a desert. They get to the border with little or no supplies left and what are they going to do hop a wall or go back?

Presumably the wall would be of sufficient stature to stop people just hopping it.

Not sure how the tunnelling would ever be stopped, so I'd agree with Phonics' lolling there.

[bruhnaldo]

I remember one time I dropped the ol' "the wall just got 10 feet taller" joke and they hit me with "the tunnels just got 10 feet deeper".

I was gobsmacked.

[John Arne]

How is that a mistake? Try riding around there with your mongolian cavalry while someone is firing arrows at you.

Sure, I mean nowdays :) Not sure Mexicans are traveling with that much cavalry.

[Jimmy Floyd]

You could build a huge moat full of hydrochloric acid to stop the tunnelling.

[Pepe]

What's lol about it is that immigration is not that big of an issue, aren't they only like 5% of the total workforce? Also, illegal immigration seems to be declining, even without a MASSIVE WALL to hop. And weren't they saying that about half of illegal immigrants enter the country legally anyway?

[phonics]

I'm not sure why the wall attracts so much lolling. It's not going to be invincible, but it would still be a pretty simple way to increase border protections, and how complicated and expensive is a wall to build (asking that possibly makes it seem less effective to people who want it to be invincible)?

John Oliver did a piece on it. It's really quite complicated and quite expensive.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU8dCYocuyI

And they've actually been building it for years and it's shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

[Mazuuurk]

Sure, I mean nowdays :) Not sure Mexicans are traveling with that much cavalry.

You know what, even if they didn't they'd be pretty damn easy to spot going around in the water, considering the whole border is patrolled by thousands of people.

That said, it'll probably create the kind of miserable situation happening in Europe now, where people are trying to go on rafts out on sea and that sort of thing.

[mikem]

We have a longer border with Canada that is virtually undefended. We don't have an army of illegals flooding across the border. The need and market mean that if we build a wall people will find a way around it. People die on a daily basis crossing the desert - it is a wall. The wall is just symbolism.

But then again, I lol because I'm part of the 30% or so of Americans (pretty equally split across party lines) whose response to any form of immigration is "More please."

[Bartholomert]

If you don't think a wall would deter at least some illegal immigrants from entering the country on the margin because it increases the 'cost' of the journey, you are stupid.

[mikem]

Shall I shove myself in a packed container with 50 other people for a month's journey where I may die of starvation, dehydration, or heat exhaustion? Oh, there is a wall?

Shall I get on that raft in and brave the seas to Florida where people are reported to die every year? Oh, there is a wall?

Shall I cross a desert littered with gravesites? Oh, there is a wall?

Shall I brave the penalties Isis imposes for leaving Aleppo, dodge the bombs of Iran, Russia, and the US, hide out from the rebels and cross the sea? Oh, there is a wall?

If people are ignoring the former, I don't think the wall is going to be a major deterrent. Call me crazy. Will it stop people, sure. Deterrent? Really?

[phonics]

It's very much the 'death penalty deters murders' argument.

[mugbull]

Who cares if it deters a few illegal immigrants, it's such a colossal waste of money and resources just to make ourselves feel good on the inside. It's a non-issue and would never come close to happening

[Bartholomert]

The wall between Israel and Palestine works, it could easily be made to work in the US. Easily.

[GS]

That's different though, isn't it.

[Shindig]

Mate, did he just compare American / Mexican relationships with the Arab-Israeli conflict?

He bloody did, mate.

[Bartholomert]

Walls work. To pretend otherwise is ignorance.

[ItalAussie]

They certainly do keep roofs up.

Hey mert, would you identify as "alt-right"?

[mikem]

Silly name but this is a pretty cool website on polling.

http://rocknpoll.graphics

[Shindig]

<opens tab>

"Elections in PollLand"

<closes tab>

[Bartholomert]

They certainly do keep roofs up.

Hey mert, would you identify as "alt-right"?

No, I think the alt-right is poison albeit useful in the short term; they are the radical social justice warriors of the Right. I would say I'm a Ben Shapiro conservative.

Trump within 2 in 4-way race, best showing since post convention bump:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/28/morning-consult-trump-closes-gap-near-margin-error/

[mikem]

Umm....

http://www.dailywire.com/news/3896/shapiro-i-will-never-vote-donald-trump-heres-why-ben-shapiro

[Bartholomert]

He's since softened his stance and says he will probably vote for Trump.

[Bartholomert]

Newest purchase to troll liberals:

https://d2w04addmnh2aq.cloudfront.net/api/file/Yt0B3ndFSeCCvsVlHeID/convert?fit=max&align=faces

[ItalAussie]

I would honestly assume that anyone I saw wearing that shirt was wearing it ironically.

[John Arne]

I would honestly assume that anyone I saw wearing that shirt was wearing it ironically.

Yup, me too.

Top trolling.

[Bernanke]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrEl2lTUMAAMSCR.jpg:large

Bubonic plague being more favorable than Trump. :D

[Kikó]

Reading the WSJ this morning and it says 8% of people are voting neither according to one poll. Later on it states Green and Lib on for around 15% of the total vote (not sure how that tallies up). My colleague told me he was voting Lib yesterday because he can't vote Trump and Hilary is a crook.

[Bartholomert]

Reading the WSJ this morning and it says 8% of people are voting neither according to one poll. Later on it states Green and Lib on for around 15% of the total vote (not sure how that tallies up). My colleague told me he was voting Lib yesterday because he can't vote Trump and Hilary is a crook.

I know a lot of people who say the same thing but then 4 beers deep confess to me that they can't wait till Trump is president. This includes pretty much every single white male who gets laid.

[Disco]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement if only the drunk will vote for him.

[Bartholomert]

A sad reflection of the fascist repression and marginalization of dissenting view points by the Left more than anything.

Trump up 3:

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

[John Arne]

So, they're afraid to speak up? Bless.

[Disco]

A sad reflection of the fascist repression and marginalization of dissenting view points by the Left more than anything.

Trump up 3:

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

I know right, drunk after only 4 beers, and american beers at that.

[phonics]

A sad reflection of the fascist repression and marginalization of dissenting view points by the Left more than anything.

Trump up 3:

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

Facist repression is telling someone to leave the country if they don't want to stand up for the national anthem. Not being so beta you won't tell pollsters who you're voting for.

[Bartholomert]

Facist repression is telling someone to leave the country if they don't want to stand up for the national anthem. Not being so beta you won't tell pollsters who you're voting for.

If you don't stand up for the national anthem and hate the country you live in, why do you continue to live in it? Serious question. Surely if you care enough about your beliefs you would move out instead of whining like a little bitch?

[GS]

I'm not sure that's quite how it's supposed to work.

[niko_cee]

Remain and Reform!

[Shindig]

If you don't stand up for the national anthem and hate the country you live in, why do you continue to live in it? Serious question. Surely if you care enough about your beliefs you would move out instead of whining like a little bitch?

1. Emigration is hard. Ask your parents.
2. Your argument only works if America is some faultless, limitless land of opportunity. It is not.
3. Define hatred of a country. America was founded off the back of pissed-off Americans. The Civil rights movement was spearheaded by pissed off Americans. In general, resistance and revolution comes from pissed off people who want a better place to live.

But, y'know, if you don't like it ... there's always Turkey.

[John]

Put all of Mert's claims together, the polls being purposely biased, shy-Trump effect, and anecdotal 'evidence' that secretly everyone white wants Trump, and anything less than a forty point margin in the actual election will mean either Mert is undeniably full of complete nonsense or that Trump has underperformed.

By the way, the person who says British and Australian style gun bans won't work in America because it's different then saying that a fuck off wall will work because it works in Israel is my favourite thing.

[ItalAussie]

David Cross has a bit which is quite relevant to the flag standing "controversy"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX1evRf4uh4

[ItalAussie]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-clinton-foundation


Three of these stories, in other words, found no wrongdoing whatsoever but chose to insinuate that they had found wrongdoing in order to make the stories seem more interesting. The AP even teased its story with a flagrantly inaccurate tweet, which it now concedes was inaccurate but won’t take down or correct. The final investigation into the seat assignments at least came up with something, but it’s got to be just about the most trivial piece of donor special treatment you can think of.

...

But once you “know” that a putative charity is really just a nexus of corruption, then even the failure to be swayed by contributions becomes a news story. And of course once your decision-making is put under that kind of scrutiny, your impulse is to shut down and try to keep information close to your chest. But when you “know” that a person is corrupt, her lack of transparency is further evidence of corruption. And any minor information that does slip out is defined as news, even if the information does not actually contain evidence of anything all that interesting.

[Bartholomert]

Put all of Mert's claims together, the polls being purposely biased, shy-Trump effect, and anecdotal 'evidence' that secretly everyone white wants Trump, and anything less than a forty point margin in the actual election will mean either Mert is undeniably full of complete nonsense or that Trump has underperformed.

By the way, the person who says British and Australian style gun bans won't work in America because it's different then saying that a fuck off wall will work because it works in Israel is my favourite thing.

Are you fucking dumb? Some analogies are valid and others are not. Your analogy doesn't work, mine does, you want me to deconstruct why that's the case I'll be happy to do so. Not to mention the 2nd Amendment is primarily about the Natural Right to self-defense and withstanding tyranny, not security on an individual level.

[Bartholomert]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-clinton-foundation

Ital do you believe there were problematic aspects with how the Clinton Foundation was run? If so, what? What do you think about the allegations that donors were granted special favors by the US State Department? How do you think a Republican who had committed similar offenses would be treated by the media? How do you feel about the fact that Hillary deliberately deleted emails in a way that made them unrecoverable? How do you feel that of the many emails deleted by Hillary claimed to be simply 'personal emails', the FBI has discovered that around 30 concerned Benghazi?

Keep in mind, you're an emotionally detached objective academic. Let's see that unbiased rational opinion.

[Bartholomert]

1. Emigration is hard. Ask your parents.
2. Your argument only works if America is some faultless, limitless land of opportunity. It is not.
3. Define hatred of a country. America was founded off the back of pissed-off Americans. The Civil rights movement was spearheaded by pissed off Americans. In general, resistance and revolution comes from pissed off people who want a better place to live.

But, y'know, if you don't like it ... there's always Turkey.

He has a right to protest that I am happy to defend. I have a right to criticize his protest for being idiotic, hypocritical and delusionally misguided.

Black people have more opportunities and access to a far higher standard of living on the whole than anywhere else in the world today. Are there enduring issues, of course, but on the whole White people fucking bend backwards and wall on eggshells to create an inclusive environment. They are undeserving of this criticism.

[John]

Are you fucking dumb? Some analogies are valid and others are not. Your analogy doesn't work, mine does, you want me to deconstruct why that's the case I'll be happy to do so. Not to mention the 2nd Amendment is primarily about the Natural Right to self-defense and withstanding tyranny, not security on an individual level.

Neither works. Israel is a tiny, tiny little country, America is the third biggest country in the world. To give that some context, stretch Israel out along the Mexican border and it could only be four miles wide if it was to maintain its current square milage. Saying 'build a wall, it works in Israel' is equivalent to an Israeli at the conception of their wall saying 'build a wall, it works in my garden.'

Given the current situation, allowing people to defend themselves against hypothetical tyranny from the US government would necessitate allowing private citizens to build and maintain a nuclear program and an air force. Are you in favour of that?

[Bartholomert]

Size can be scaled. America has 44% of households where a gun is present, not to mention cultural difference and the fact that it is not an island. Confiscation is just not possible period. There are differences as to why your analogy simply doesn't work.

No you don't. It's about deterrence, the threat of a protracted guerrilla war is sufficient (see Chinese Civil War/ Vietnam War / etc). Also if I'm not mistaken the 2nd Amendment allows for private gun ownership for personal self-defense meaning that ordinances with indiscriminate killing power (aka mortars, nuclear bombs, etc) are not protected.

[ItalAussie]

Ital do you believe there were problematic aspects with how the Clinton Foundation was run? If so, what? What do you think about the allegations that donors were granted special favors by the US State Department? How do you think a Republican who had committed similar offenses would be treated by the media? How do you feel about the fact that Hillary deliberately deleted emails in a way that made them unrecoverable? How do you feel that of the many emails deleted by Hillary claimed to be simply 'personal emails', the FBI has discovered that around 30 concerned Benghazi?

Keep in mind, you're an emotionally detached objective academic. Let's see that unbiased rational opinion.
I wasn't talking to you, and don't plan to change that, so this is a one-off response. Literally the main premise of the article is a direct comparison with the way Colin Powell's charity is received. The boogeyman Clinton foundation is a series of attempts at looking for any traction that will stick. That's literally the premise of the article.

The email thing has been done to absolute death, and there was nothing. Her own political enemies tried to come up with something in an inquiry they controlled, and still came up with nothing. It's reached the point of being a swift-boat style beat-up. It's like how everyone got hot and heavy over the leaked emails, and all it ended up proving when people combed through it was that Hilary Clinton is relatively boring in her workplace demeanour.

Amusingly, although not a point made in the original article, Colin Powell used a bloody AOL email address. I like Colin Powell, but at least have your own server, man.

[John]

Size can be scaled. America has 44% of households where a gun is present, not to mention cultural difference and the fact that it is not an island. Confiscation is just not possible period. There are differences as to why your analogy simply doesn't work.

No you don't. It's about deterrence, the threat of a protracted guerrilla war is sufficient (see Chinese Civil War/ Vietnam War / etc). Also if I'm not mistaken the 2nd Amendment allows for private gun ownership for personal self-defense meaning that ordinances with indiscriminate killing power (aka mortars, nuclear bombs, etc) are not protected.

It can be interpreted in any one of a hundred different ways, because the people who wrote it couldn't have imagined AR-15 rifles or grenade launchers. It doesn't specifically allow or ban any one weapon, all it says is that people have a right to keep 'arms'. By the way, you could probably argue reasonably effectively that a drug gang is a 'well regulated militia', with its bosses and captains and soldiers.

It's almost as though the constitution was written for an America which no longer exists.

Anyway, we've done guns a hundred times. I was just lolling at you for not seeing the absurd contradiction in your positions on guns and walls.

[Bartholomert]

I wasn't talking to you, and don't plan to change that, so this is a one-off response. Literally the main premise of the article is a direct comparison with the way Colin Powell's charity is received. The boogeyman Clinton foundation is a series of attempts at looking for any traction that will stick. That's literally the premise of the article.

The email thing has been done to absolute death, and there was nothing. Her own political enemies tried to come up with something in an inquiry they controlled, and still came up with nothing. It's reached the point of being a swift-boat style beat-up. It's like how everyone got hot and heavy over the leaked emails, and all it ended up proving when people combed through it was that Hilary Clinton is relatively boring in her workplace demeanour.

Amusingly, although not a point made in the original article, Colin Powell used a bloody AOL email address. I like Colin Powell, but at least have your own server, man.

Wow. Just wow. You are far more delusional than even I imagined. Everything you just said can be easily debunked with a simple google search and even the most superficial knowledge of the issues. Do you want me to go through every inane 'argument' you just presented or will it fall on deaf ears?

Dude. I'm serious you need to be better than this, it scares me to think you are in any way associated with academia.

[Bartholomert]

It can be interpreted in any one of a hundred different ways, because the people who wrote it couldn't have imagined AR-15 rifles or grenade launchers. It doesn't specifically allow or ban any one weapon, all it says is that people have a right to keep 'arms'. By the way, you could probably argue reasonably effectively that a drug gang is a 'well regulated militia', with its bosses and captains and soldiers.

It's almost as though the constitution was written for an America which no longer exists.

Anyway, we've done guns a hundred times. I was just lolling at you for not seeing the absurd contradiction in your positions on guns and walls.

Eh phones didn't exist when the Constitution was written, does that mean I don't have 1st Amendment protections for my speech when I'm speaking on the phone? That's not how the Constitution works.

And yes, there are many interpretations of the Constitution...but there is also established law. This is what the law says.

I have no issues with 'gangs' legally owning guns...they would have them whether they were legal or not anyways. At least this way the regular law abiding citizen can protect himself from those gangs.

[John]

Eh phones didn't exist when the Constitution was written, does that mean I don't have 1st Amendment protections for my speech when I'm speaking on the phone? That's not how the Constitution works.

And yes, there are many interpretations of the Constitution...but there is also established law. This is what the law says.

I have no issues with 'gangs' legally owning guns...they would have them whether they were legal or not anyways. At least this way the regular law abiding citizen can protect himself from those gangs.

No, because speaking on the phone doesn't fundamentally change the nature of speech. The internet sort of does, because it means that your words can be seen by millions upon millions of people with minimal effort, but then I'm sure the people who said anyone should be able to say whatever they want would be fine with that. Trying to contort a sentence written about weaponry by people who only had muskets and swords to fit a world in which helicopter gunships exist is just bonkers, and I'm not sure the people who used 'arms' as shorthand for the six types of muskets available would be fine with some NRA crackpot using their words to argue that he be allowed to keep an AR-15 in his boot.

By the way, you should start just doing all these things you're threatening to do. Asking someone if they want you to provide substance to your argument is hilarious.

[Bartholomert]

Yeah but you realize it's understood that the reason they kept the wording general was to purposefully accommodate for future technological developments, it's done so purposefully. It's supposed to apply to modern, personal weapons to be used for self-defense. What sort of purpose would the 2nd Amendment have if it didn't apply to weapons necessary for effective resistance against tyranny in a given epoch. Think about it.

I'm busy. If I'm going to spend 20 minutes meticulously debunking every single one of his arguments with citations, I want to know that it's worth my time. I've done it in the past and he just stops responding.

[John]

I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that people smart enough to write the constitution were stupid enough to think they could foresee and legislate for all future developments, which is why I find arguments based on it so utterly daft. We know more now, we are smarter, the world has changed, why are people arguing over whether this proposed change fits a document written two hundred and fifty years ago instead of whether it would make the country better now?

There's middle ground between spending twenty minutes looking up sources and just offering a bit of substance to go along with your DO BETTER DUDE bullshit.

[Bartholomert]

I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that people smart enough to write the constitution were stupid enough to think they could foresee and legislate for all future developments, which is why I find arguments based on it so utterly daft. We know more now, we are smarter, the world has changed, why are people arguing over whether this proposed change fits a document written two hundred and fifty years ago instead of whether it would make the country better now?

There's middle ground between spending twenty minutes looking up sources and just offering a bit of substance to go along with your DO BETTER DUDE bullshit.

Okay but that's literally what they did...it's in the Congressional records of the conversations which took place while they were debating the Bill of Rights. Do you really think they were so stupid to not realize that technology would advance past muskets, and that the citizenry would in turn need to have access to this new weaponry in order to fulfill the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

Everything he said was wrong. I don't know how else to respond.

[ItalAussie]

Wow. Just wow. You are far more delusional than even I imagined. Everything you just said can be easily debunked with a simple google search and even the most superficial knowledge of the issues. Do you want me to go through every inane 'argument' you just presented or will it fall on deaf ears?

Dude. I'm serious you need to be better than this, it scares me to think you are in any way associated with academia.

I'm sure you'll find a Breitbart link or something. I'm truly tired of arguing with you, as neither of us believe anything the other says or any of the references the other uses, nor do we hold the other in any kind of intellectual regard.

Let's just stick with parallel discussions. Neither of us enjoy engaging the other. You won't believe anyone even marginally left of Pinochet, and I think an undergraduate liberal arts degree is almost worth the ink used to print it. It's truly not worth the energy looking for a way to reach common ground.

[John]

I was speaking more generally there, in response to you opening the conversation up to freedom of speech. I'm sure they thought they could foresee certain things and I'm sure they did, they were smart men, but do you honestly think a time travelling Jefferson would look at today's world and think that document was sufficient?

When was the constitution closed for new amendments, incidentally? It seems odd to hear people shouting YOU CANT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION when citing the Second Amendment.

[Bartholomert]

I'm sure you'll find a Breitbart link or something. I'm truly tired of arguing with you, as neither of us believe anything the other says or any of the references the other uses, nor do we hold the other in any kind of intellectual regard. You won't believe anyone even marginally left of Pinochet, and I think an undergraduate liberal arts degree is almost worth the ink used to print it.

Let's just stick with parallel discussions. It's easier. Neither of us enjoy engaging the other.

How about the NY Times editorial board:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/opinion/cutting-ties-to-the-clinton-foundation.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

[Bartholomert]

I was speaking more generally there, in response to you opening the conversation up to freedom of speech. I'm sure they thought they could foresee certain things and I'm sure they did, they were smart men, but do you honestly think a time travelling Jefferson would look at today's world and think that document was sufficient?

When was the constitution closed for new amendments, incidentally? It seems odd to hear people shouting YOU CANT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION when citing the Second Amendment.

Jefferson was an oddity...he wanted the Constitution to be re-written every generation...

It's not. It's just hard to amend, anyone who says 'you can't change the Constitution' is stupid, it's been changed a bunch of times.

[ItalAussie]

How about the NY Times editorial board:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/opinion/cutting-ties-to-the-clinton-foundation.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

See, that's exactly the kind of article it talks about. Nothing the Clintons did there is unreasonable in the context of running a charity. Colin Powell had numerous meetings with foreign dignitaries due to his charity - that's the normal way that figurehead charities run. Yet Clinton does the same and it's breathlessly reported as some kind of scandal. Then she stops because of that (largely unfair, or at least inequitable criticism) and it's reported as another kind of scandal. These stories really ought to be reported in the context of how comparable charities are run, and if you still think it's reasonable to criticise them given that context, then have at it - that's a fair stance.

It's actually very interesting how similar Clinton is to her predecessor, and how differently she's being received. And it's honestly kind of sad, because it's going to hamstring the good work that they've done. Look, I know you think she's using the charity as a front for running corpses full of drugs for children or something, and that's fine. I truly don't want to argue with you, because we clearly aren't going to reach common ground. Let's just not.

[Bartholomert]

See, that's exactly the kind of article it talks about. Nothing the Clintons did there is unreasonable in the context of running a charity. Colin Powell had numerous meetings with foreign dignitaries due to his charity - that's the normal way that figurehead charities run. Yet Clinton does the same and it's breathlessly reported as some kind of scandal. Then she stops because of that (largely unfair, or at least inequitable criticism) and it's reported as another kind of scandal. These stories should be reported in the context of how comparable charities are run, and if you still think it's reasonable to criticise them given that context, then have at it.

It's actually very interesting how similar Clinton is to her predecessor, and how differently she's being received. And it's actually kind of sad, because it's going to hamstring the good work that they've done. Look, I know you think she's using the charity as a front for running corpses full of drugs for children or something, and that's fine. I truly don't want to argue with you, because we clearly aren't going to reach common ground. Let's just not.

"Well they did it too" is not an argument to justify poor ethical decisions. The NYT is calling for her to cut her ties with the organization and to immediately stop taking donations from abroad; we're talking the most sycophant Hillary supporters essentially agreeing with Trump on this topic. It's bad.

[ItalAussie]

There's a reasonable argument that the way charities are run should be changed. As a rule, I'm not a fan of people making their own figurehead charities. We aren't exactly short of charities, so go help out with an existing one. But that's largely how it's done in the current environment.

The evil truth about Hilary Clinton is that she's a boring typical beltway politician in every possible respect. She'll be a boring President, and will be unlikely to spearhead any particular interesting moves in any political direction. She's certainly way too dull to bring about any kind of political apocalypse. She'll pretty much just hold the tiller in place for eight years and call it a day.

[ItalAussie]

I have often wondered about whether a politician could run on a platform of "things are mostly alright, and I won't make any drastic changes - maybe some tinkering around the edges, but that's it". I honestly think that would probably fly in countries with more sensible and reasoned political environments, although they'd probably get savaged from both sides in the US.

"My name is Bruce McDundee, and I'm here to maintain the status quo. Vote for me if you'd rather things stay mostly the way they are for a little bit."

"Always remember our motto: 'Change is hard. Bugger that.'"

[Bartholomert]

There's a reasonable argument that the way charities are run should be changed. As a rule, I'm not a fan of people making their own figurehead charities. We aren't exactly short of charities, so go help out with an existing one. But that's largely how it's done in the current environment.

The evil truth about Hilary Clinton is that she's a boring typical beltway politician in every possible respect. She'll be a boring President, and will be unlikely to spearhead any particular interesting moves in any political direction. She's certainly way too dull to bring about any kind of political apocalypse. She'll pretty much just hold the tiller in place for eight years and call it a day.

I agree. She's not terrible, I recognize in fairness that to grease the wheels of the world you need to be willing to compromise ethically in ways the public would naively scoff at, and if this was 8 years ago when moderate Democrats existed (you know the ones who believed in the neoliberal consensus accepted by literally every economist, fiscal responsibility, and moderate compromise on social issues), I would be seriously seriously tempted to vote for her. I just can't live with a very far left SCOTUS nominee. I can't.

If Hillary came out tomorrow and said, "I'll nominate a moderate SCOTUS candidate, lower the deficit to a sustainable level and complete free trade agreements exhaustively shown to bring about greater economic growth" I would literally campaign for her.

[ItalAussie]

She'll nominate Sri Srinivasan, who so well-regarded that his nomination would be impossible to block. Slightly center-left (by US standards), but basically the middle of the court. Clearly smart, and respected by sensible moderates from both sides of politics. As non-controversial a pick as it's possible to produce.

He's basically destined to end up on the Supreme Court. The question is when, rather than if. The fact that Clinton has such an obvious consensus nomination first-up means that you don't even have to worry about that - it's going to happen eventually, so why not now. It's the most boring possible pick for the most boring possible President. :nodd:

[Bartholomert]

She'll nominate Sri Srinivasan, who so well-regarded that his nomination would be impossible to block. Slightly center-left, but basically the middle of the court. Clearly smart, and respected by sensible moderates from both sides of politics.

If I could get a guarantee I could live with it. Honestly.

But I can't have her throwing around outrageous proposals like granting citizenship to millions of illegals, free public university, regulating coal production out of business, and single-payer to pander to Bernie Sanders supporters. I think it's just necessary lies, but who knows.

Pretty much I just want Bill Clinton again.

[ItalAussie]

The real Supreme Court question is whether, when Trump loses the election, the Republicans hurriedly try to confirm Garland, who is basically the ideal "Republican-mollification-by-a-Democrat" pick, and was clearly bait to see if they'd jump.

EDIT: I reckon that they'll withdraw the nomination, claiming that it's for Clinton to decide now. But it'll be a safe consensus Supreme Court pick, so status quo basically maintained.

[ItalAussie]

Pretty much I just want Bill Clinton again.
I've got good news for you. :D

[Bartholomert]

The real Supreme Court question is whether, when Trump loses the election, the Republicans hurriedly try to confirm Merrick Garland, who is basically the ideal "Republican-mollification-by-a-Democrat" pick, and was clearly bait to see if they'd jump.

I think they would withdraw him.

[John]

She'll nominate Sri Srinivasan, who so well-regarded that his nomination would be impossible to block. Slightly center-left (by US standards), but basically the middle of the court. Clearly smart, and respected by sensible moderates from both sides of politics. As non-controversial a pick as it's possible to produce.

He's basically destined to end up on the Supreme Court. The question is when, rather than if. The fact that Clinton has such an obvious consensus nomination first-up means that you don't even have to worry about that - it's going to happen eventually, so why not now. It's the most boring possible pick for the most boring possible President. :nodd:

From an outside perspective that's probably a point in favour of Trump. It'll be infinitely more entertaining when he nominates Kid Rock.

[John Arne]

"If you don't like it, you can leave" is an argument expats here a lot here in Vietnam when we have the temerity to criticise something in our adopted country. Fortunately, there are more than enough smart Viets who then tell them to shut the fuck up.

[elth]

It's such a strangely absolutist statement, implying that everything about a country is so perfect that there is no legitimate grounds for attempting to create change.

It's weird because most of the people criticising Kaepernick would, I suspect, have no problem with people protesting America's immigration policy.

If Trump doesn't like America not having a wall, maybe he needs to move to country that has one.

[Bartholomert]

It's such a strangely absolutist statement, implying that everything about a country is so perfect that there is no legitimate grounds for attempting to create change.

It's weird because most of the people criticising Kaepernick would, I suspect, have no problem with people protesting America's immigration policy.

If Trump doesn't like America not having a wall, maybe he needs to move to country that has one.

I think there is a range of criticisms which are okay, but there are others which touch on principles so sacrosanct and nonnegotiable that questioning them are simply unacceptable and warrant the 'if you don't like this aspect of our country, which we find to be fundamental to its core identity, you shouldn't be here' response.

[elth]

Is police officers being allowed to kill black people without consequences really that fundamental to the American identity? Fair enough if you're protesting the abolition of slavery or whatever but regardless of how you feel about the accuracy of the perception that black people are unreasonably persecuted, I find it remarkable that it's something that anyone would feel it legitimate to try to quash debate about.

[Bartholomert]

Is police officers being allowed to kill black people without consequences really that fundamental to the American identity? Fair enough if you're protesting the abolition of slavery or whatever but regardless of how you feel about the accuracy of the perception that black people are unreasonably persecuted, I find it remarkable that it's something that anyone would feel it legitimate to try to quash debate about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

Police officers shoot black men less than white men. Study done by a black Harvard economist. Facts matter.

[Bartholomert]

How is this defensible, what other work related emails were deleted?:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/293837-fbi-recovers-30-clinton-emails-involving-benghazi-attack

[John Arne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

Police officers shoot black men less than white men. Study done by a black Harvard economist. Facts matter.

So it's ok to shoot black people as long as they shoot more white people? The issue isn't the race, rather the incidents happening at all.

Setting certain things as "off the table" and not even allowable for discussion is completely pointless, almost fascist, you could say.

[Bartholomert]

So it's ok to shoot black people as long as they shoot more white people? The issue isn't the race, rather the incidents happening at all.

Setting certain things as "off the table" and not even allowable for discussion is completely pointless, almost fascist, you could say.

Uh no. It's the fact that when shootings are occurring there is not a racist element involved (which is what Elth ignorantly suggested). We can all agree that less shootings should be occurring as a whole.

If you say "I should be allowed to have 5 wives and rape whichever women I see and I'm oppressed if I am not allowed to", I will respond with, "no you can't, not in this country and you should leave if that's what you want to do."

[John Arne]

You've gone from questioning the constitution to people wanting to rape women. And for that, I'm out.

[elth]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

Police officers shoot black men less than white men. Study done by a black Harvard economist. Facts matter.

So why not talk about that instead of demanding that Kaepernick leave America?

I already said that I don't care about your position on the substance of Kaepernick's complaint. I care about whether you agree that Trump is correct to demand that people who feel their communities are unreasonably persecuted by police should leave the country, rather than be engaged in discussion and debate.

[Bartholomert]

So why not talk about that instead of demanding that Kaepernick leave America?

I already said that I don't care about your position on the substance of Kaepernick's complaint. I care about whether you agree that Trump is correct to demand that people who feel their communities are unreasonably persecuted by police should leave the country, rather than be engaged in discussion and debate.

I just showed you they're not unreasonably persecuted by police. It's a false narrative.

[elth]

The old adage about not arguing with idiots because they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience comes to mind.

[Shindig]

In that way, he's set for a life approaching the bench.

[Kikó]

Trump and the Mexican president met and they seemed cordial. Mexico says they ain't paying for no wall.

[Pepe]

There are few men that can out-idiot Trump, and Peña Nieto is one of them.

[GS]

That may be, but I think it's fair to believe him when he says that Mexico won't be paying for the wall.

[Pepe]

Well, of course. Does anyone actually believe that would ever happen?

[GS]

Some of Trump's nutter supporters must do.

[Pepe]

Probably. I've lost all faith in this country's intelligence tbh.

[GS]

There's clearly been some sort of collective shitting of the bed, but it's been building for years. Some of this is quite interesting:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/08/15/conservative-radio-host-admits-right-wing-medias-effort-discredit-mainstream-outlets-paved-way-trump/212422

[Bartholomert]

Probably. I've lost all faith in this country's intelligence tbh.

So did I when they failed the populace. That happened before Trump.

[John Arne]

Putting aside the issues of wall logistics and politics.... why on earth does Trump STILL think that Mexico would pay for it? Does he really think that he can bribe/blackmail them with trade deals?

[Shindig]

The only way Mexico pays for it is if they get some land out of it.

[phonics]

As if this election couldn't get any better, here's old Rudy 'No Islamic Terror Attacks Before Obama' Giuliani wearing a 'Make Mexico Great Again Also' hat.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrOwyLlXYAIZ-Xx.jpg:large

[bruhnaldo]

Probably. I've lost all faith in this country's intelligence tbh.

So go back and fix your own, dickhead.

[bruhnaldo]

So did I when they failed the populace. That happened before Trump.

So go back and fix your own, dickhead.

[Pepe]

So go back and fix your own, dickhead.

I most likely will once I finish my PhD.

[bruhnaldo]

I most likely will once I finish my PhD.

Good luck. People are literally dying to get out of that shithole. Amazing with so many apparent brilliant minds at the helm.

[bruhnaldo]

I'm sorry for being a dick but I've watched you bitch about my country for years. It's fucking tiresome.

Obviously America isn't amazing but neither is anywhere else on the planet for anyone who isn't rich and well off.

I'm tired of the world slating my country at every opportunity as if it makes their own country any less shitty.

[phonics]

lol at the inferiority complex on show here.

[Bartholomert]

America is about 100x better to live in than anywhere else in the world. If you disagree you've never lived in America (and no DC and NY are shitholes and don't count).

[niko_cee]

Which bits do count?

[phonics]

REAL America.

[Pepe]

I'm sorry for being a dick but I've watched you bitch about my country for years. It's fucking tiresome.

Obviously America isn't amazing but neither is anywhere else on the planet for anyone who isn't rich and well off.

I'm tired of the world slating my country at every opportunity as if it makes their own country any less shitty.

That' what we do: moan. Don't worry, I also criticize my country a lot, just not here since we don't have discussions about it.

[John Arne]

Is this like when black people don't count toward crime stats?

[Bartholomert]

Is this like when black people don't count toward crime stats?

Europe isn't inherently safer than the US due to its brilliant public policy decisions, it's just demographically different.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/948/334/71c.png

[mugbull]

America's dope. A product of its geography, but very unique among nations for its global reach *and* the moral principles held by its people. We've had some complete fucks at the helm of our government, but the spirit of the population is forever optimistic and lovely.

I'm with you Bruhnacho. Western Europe is probably overall a better place to live, but if it wasn't for our alignment (and Theodore Roosevelt), those nice little secular democracies would be long gone

[niko_cee]

200+ years of forward planning.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110709172522im_/http://www.thedugout.tv/ubb/smilies/cool.gif

[Disco]

Nothing is 'very unique' you spaz.

[mugbull]

Nothing is 'very unique' you spaz.

Chill out, maybe read a bit

[bruhnaldo]

lol at the inferiority complex on show here.

lol at the pseudo-psychoanalysis. i've had to listen to this America is terrible shit on here for what probably constitutes a literal decade at this point.

Maybe come up with some new material and people won't get annoyed by it.

[John Arne]

America is one of the most insular western countries in the world (probably because of said global reach), I reckon. Even the yanks who do get out seem completely oblivious to the majority of world events. Not all of them, of course, but more so than Aussies, Brits, Scandi's etc.

[Bartholomert]

That feel when people lecture me about America in English where if it wasn't for America they would be speaking German.

[GS]

Well, that's not true is it.

[Spoonsky]

I love America, but not for any historical or political reasons, just because it's my home. The geographical and cultural diversity is pretty amazing, too; if I were forced to live in one country for the rest of my life it would be hard not to choose America, you could live in quite a few places so different that they might as well be different countries.

[mugbull]

Well, that's not true is it.

Russian's worse, it's got twice as many cases as German

[Lewis]

The Americans owed us one for letting the French win their independence for them.

[Bartholomert]

I love America, but not for any historical or political reasons, just because it's my home. The geographical and cultural diversity is pretty amazing, too; if I were forced to live in one country for the rest of my life it would be hard not to choose America, you could live in quite a few places so different that they might as well be different countries.

I could go 3.5 hours north of DC and I'm in Cosmopolitan Socialist New York and I can go 3.5 hours south and I'm in Confederate flag bumper stickers next to gun racks country. It's pretty wild.

[ItalAussie]

Trump's Arizona speech was like something out of V for Vendetta.

He really seems cut from the same cloth as Benito Mussolini, politically. It's interesting to see how people like that can ride populist disaffection towards power.

[bruhnaldo]

I'm telling you guys, he doesn't want to win.

He's going to go full nuclear during the debates if he's still within 10% points in the polls.

[Yeldoow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR5KFxUIMH8

"And part of what makes America an exceptional nation, is that we are also an indispensable nation.
In fact, we are the indispensable nation." :uhoh:

[GS]

American exceptionalism is a lol-worthy doctrine to buy into, but whatever.

[7om]

America is about 100x better to live in than anywhere else in the world. If you disagree you've never lived in America (and no DC and NY are shitholes and don't count).

Nice caveat, because you knew I was going to disagree with you.

[Pepe]

Best country in the world!

*Shotguns Bud Light and passes out

[Pepe]

Nice caveat, because you knew I was going to disagree with you.

I wonder if any of the places I've lived in count.

[bruhnaldo]

Idk. I'd imagine I'm obviously one of the more " 'Murica!!!" type Americans we have here.

But even then, my dreams are to own a small shop and a little villa on the coast of Spain, Italy.. or somewhere in South America. Just have a very simple life with a wife and family.

I don't really feel like you can do that in America. There's too much hustle, bustle, expectation to do all of these extra things. People want the frivolities that money can bring.

People are generally rude as fuck, at least in major cities. The smaller towns most people are way too entirely set in their ways and don't care to meet new people or learn new ideas.

I just want to fuck off with a beautiful but simple woman. Just sell small goods. Newspapers. Maybe some fruits and things like that. Just live in love.

In America everything is so commercialized. Nothing is natural, everything is a caricature of something someone saw on television or an idea they came up with from the internet.

It's honestly not really that great. But I still love my country. I realize that there are plenty of opportunities to be afforded here that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. I realize that our standard of living is of luxury compared to 99% of the world.

It's crazy to me that we live in a country that basically uses more fresh water to flush our shit down a pipe within any 1 minute span than many people in the world even get in an entire year. But there's nothing you can do about stuff like that.

And I wouldn't trade it for the world. I wish I was that big of a person to say I'd rather suffer than someone else, but I wouldn't man.

I don't know. I think most of the modern world is shit. We're over-developed as a society. We have access to too much misinformation that people then consider gospel.

Anyways let me shut up I'm just rambling nonsense.

[bruhnaldo]

tl;dr: Ya, the United States are certainly better off than most countries, but the things we value in this country, the way we treat other people, are all honestly disgusting, materialistic, and not truly worthwhile.

Everything is a bandage to placate the masses to the real problems we have and completely ignore.

[bruhnaldo]

For example, I'm in class last night. Mind you, everyone in my class is a bit younger than me (I'm 27, they're basically 18-21) as I've finally gotten back into college just recently.

Point is, the assignment was to interview another person and class and then introduce them to everyone else (it's a public speaking elective). The one girl said her dream life goal was to own a pair of Christian Louboutin heels.

Could you infer that, if she were to own such expensive shoes, she was to already be successful in other areas? Sure.

But it just kind've threw me back that her goal was just to own the shoes, not to be successful in general.

Maybe I'm overthinking it a bit.

[bruhnaldo]

So go back and fix your own, dickhead.

Pepe I apologize for this. I was still waking up to the day and, as I mentioned before, was already annoyed by the anti-USA rhetoric.

But that was a dickhead comment and I apologize.

[John]

That's the sort of vapid twat who ends up on Big Brother because their goal is to be famous, rather than to do something well and have fame as a byproduct.

[Lewis]

The United States of America is exceptional as far as the original concept went, but then the imperialists started using it to bolster their poorly-planned, universalist shit ('Empire of Liberty' roflmao), and now it doesn't mean what it actually means.

[Pepe]

Pepe I apologize for this. I was still waking up to the day and, as I mentioned before, was already annoyed by the anti-USA rhetoric.

But that was a dickhead comment and I apologize.

It's all good. :)


The United States of America is exceptional as far as the original concept went, but then the imperialists started using it to bolster their poorly-planned, universalist shit ('Empire of Liberty' roflmao), and now it doesn't mean what it actually means.

Freedom.

[bruhnaldo]

It is entirely embarrassing that the country was basically (i realize it's not this simple) founded on freedoms such as... dare I say... freedom of religion....... yet we're probably the most intolerant (as far as Western civilization goes) of anyone who isn't Christian/Catholic or Jewish lol.

[Pepe]

yet we're probably the most intolerant (as far as Western civilization goes) of anyone who isn't Christian/Catholic or Jewish lol.

That is most definitely not true.

[mugbull]

American exceptionalism is definitely real, by the way. There's no other country anywhere near our size that upholds rule of law. Japan is the closest, but they're a shithole for other reasons

[Lewis]

India. Not that that is relevant.

[mugbull]

India's getting there, that's true

And of course it's relevant

[Pepe]

The most lol part of the US is the love for 'the troops.'

[Pepe]

Playing the anthemn before Mamma Mia? Fuck off.

[Lewis]

Upholding the rule of law doesn't make the United States exceptional, and it isn't even compatible with the bullshit modern definitions of 'exceptionalism', most of which seem to factor in a healthy disregard for international law.

[Disco]

Upholding the rule of law :lol:

Unless it's someone else's or you know, vaguely inconvenient.

[GS]

The most lol part of the US is the love for 'the troops.'

I don't see why 'support the troops' is something deserving of contempt.

Their political leaders who send them off to wars? Yes, fine.

But not the lads actually tasked with doing it.

[Pepe]

I don't hold contempt for the soldiers. I hold contempt for the concept of thanking them for our freedomz.

[mugbull]

Upholding the rule of law :lol:

Unless it's someone else's or you know, vaguely inconvenient.

You can lol me off the board if you want, but it just shows your ignorance of the subject. At least Lewis can make claims based in historical accuracy even if his views are different. Even then we mustn't forget that Lewis cums to the thought of Enoch Powell grandstanding.

You take any other country anywhere near our size - yes, this includes India and Japan - and put them in our shoes, and the world is a monumentally less secure place. Obviously we've done some stupid shit; Rostow, Kissinger, Nixon were all incredibly poor decision makers, McCarthy made Americans afraid to exist, and Bush destroyed the Middle East. But the United Nations is a pretty incredible achievement, so are the altogether humane military strategies we pursue (yes, this is the case. Until about 2012 soldiers were legally obligated to value civilian lives over their own. Where else are you going to see that?), the free and open immigration policies we have; you might see this in modern Germany, or France, or the UK, but they only have the security and stability to do these things because of our military and diplomatic strength.

If you're as huge as the United States, any actions you take will have grave consequence, so it's not surprising that we've fucked up a lot. But shit, do some fucking reading, learn something, before slagging off the US. Don't be an ignorant tool.

[GS]

I don't hold contempt for the soldiers. I hold contempt for the concept of thanking them for our freedomz.

Why's that?

[Pepe]

Because bombing Iraq and freedom in the US have fuck all to do. if they were defending their country from invasions from every corner then fair enough. Also, it's a job and they choose to do it. No one thanks you for cracking a couple of spreadsheets.

[GS]

It's a job with a huge amount of personal risk, whether they choose to do it or not. I'm comfortable not comparing building a financial model with disarming a roadside bomb. Ultimately if some people didn't choose to do it, they'd be conscripting people like you or I and fuck that.

Whether you think they're "fighting for freedom" or not is irrelevant. The armed forces, in the civilised world anyway, do what they're told to do by their political leaders. I may not agree with the aims (did Bush have aims? fuck knows) of the political leaders taking the decision, but you should have full respect for the lads who're sent over there to implement them.

[Pepe]

I have respect. I am not thankful.

[GS]

I see.

Where do you stand on humanitarian military intervention, investment in defence and the nuclear deterrent? I'm curious about this in an American context, certainly from the Democratic side.

[Pepe]

Would love to go on but I need to go to my amateur bicycle race, where the anthem will be played before the start. Do they play the anthem in sunday league matches over there?

EDIT: Those will have to wait.

[GS]

The Gaelic Games play Amhrán na bhFiann before their matches, but that's only because it's the last acceptable platform for republicanism in the north.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm a British patriot through and through, and I reckon I've sung God Save the Queen, in a public setting, fewer than twenty times in my life. Maybe even fewer than ten.

That's the great thing about patriotism. It can, and perhaps should, be silent.

[Pepe]

Conveniently posted today:

https://www.thenation.com/article/colin-kaepernicks-protest-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-military/


This country—despite its awful treatment of soldiers when they return home—worships the cult of the military. And professional sports—especially the NFL—have played a central role. In addition to the military flyovers, the generals flipping coins at the start of the Super Bowl and the staged “reunions” at NFL games, the US Department of Defense paid $5.4 million from 2011 to 2014 to 14 NFL teams to stage “Salute the Troops” events. These involved product placement, advertising, and “casual” (also known as “subliminal”) mentions.

And now we have arrived at a frightening point where an act of dissent that has nothing to do with the military is labeled disrespectful to men and women in uniform. The message is that Kaepernick has this “freedom” to protest only because of the protections accorded us by our military. This is such a disturbing—and a very post-9/11—concept.

The military doesn’t “give” us the right to protest. The Constitution does that. Two hundred years of struggle for civil liberties does that.

If we accept the notion that we are allowed to raise our voices, or take a knee in dissent, only by the good graces of the military, then we are also implicitly saying that the military has the right to take that ability away.

[mugbull]

I see.

Where do you stand on humanitarian military intervention, investment in defence and the nuclear deterrent? I'm curious about this in an American context, certainly from the Democratic side.

The defense budget thing is tricky, because it's one of those things that, once you begin to raise it, there's really no going back. There was a year towards the beginning of the Eisenhower administration, after the NSC 68 was published, where defense spending tripled within a year. That's insanity! But you're never going to be able to pull that back down, because a) you'll always have prominent hawks who will eat you alive for ostensibly endangering the country, and b) once endowed with power, the military establishment, behaving like any other interest group, will have the resources for continued lobbying. And the military is the one actor within society who will always favor interventionism, because, at the end of the day, what other purpose do they serve? If you're the head of the US Armed Forces advising the president, and you've got his ear, you're always going to be on the side of action, in a very basic sense because you want to be *doing* something.

Basically, this is all a relic of the Cold War past that will be very, very difficult to pull back on. We could make do spending half as much as we're spending now, and use all of the extra money for healthcare, education, etc. but I don't see it ever happening.

Nuclear policy is really cool but it's such a complicated subject that I don't know too much about.

[Lewis]

You can lol me off the board if you want, but it just shows your ignorance of the subject. At least Lewis can make claims based in historical accuracy even if his views are different. Even then we mustn't forget that Lewis cums to the thought of Enoch Powell grandstanding.

You take any other country anywhere near our size - yes, this includes India and Japan - and put them in our shoes, and the world is a monumentally less secure place. Obviously we've done some stupid shit; Rostow, Kissinger, Nixon were all incredibly poor decision makers, McCarthy made Americans afraid to exist, and Bush destroyed the Middle East. But the United Nations is a pretty incredible achievement, so are the altogether humane military strategies we pursue (yes, this is the case. Until about 2012 soldiers were legally obligated to value civilian lives over their own. Where else are you going to see that?), the free and open immigration policies we have; you might see this in modern Germany, or France, or the UK, but they only have the security and stability to do these things because of our military and diplomatic strength.

If you're as huge as the United States, any actions you take will have grave consequence, so it's not surprising that we've fucked up a lot. But shit, do some fucking reading, learn something, before slagging off the US. Don't be an ignorant tool.

The British Empire (which effectively invented the rule of law) did that as top nation, and continued to do so in much of the world long enough to help devise and establish the apparently wholly-American United Nations. The notion of 'exceptionalism' is nothing if not rooted in historical precedent, so you're just conflating it with supremacy like every other wank.

[mugbull]

Humanitarian intervention is usually pretty pointless. That's where free market / technology / media disseminating across the world will probably do more good in the long run.

[mugbull]

The British Empire (which effectively invented the rule of law) did that as top nation, and continued to do so in much of the world long enough to help devise and establish the apparently wholly-American United Nations. The notion of 'exceptionalism' is nothing if not rooted in historical precedent, so you're just conflating it with supremacy like every other wank.

I'm not saying that our ideas are unique, I'm saying we've been in a unique geopolitical and historical position to implement them on a global scale. You weren't, because you weren't big enough or isolated enough. And we're probably on the decline now, so the next couple centuries are going to be dominated by the 'exceptional' Chinese

You can call it supremacy but if the Russians had cultural supremacy the suicide rate would quintuple

[Disco]

I'm a British patriot through and through, and I reckon I've sung God Save the Queen, in a public setting, fewer than twenty times in my life. Maybe even fewer than ten.

That's the great thing about patriotism. It can, and perhaps should, be silent.

They play it before England games at Twickenham but I don't think I've ever been at my seat in time for it (we have the walk from the Winning Post timed to perfection) and I'm struggling to think of anything else I go to where it would be played.

[Lewis]

The Chinese won't be 'exceptional' either (although they will think they are, with their Sinocentrist shite). The original concept is a good one as far as 'Murican pride is concerned, so I don't know why they have to ruin it for themselves.

[mikem]

Lewis Because Mokbull, like Pepe, GS, and pretty much everyone in the US, have no clue what de Tocqueville's concept of Anerican exceptionalism was. It has long since been co-opted by everyone (including the American Communist Party who brought the term back into vogue) to the point of meaninglessness. It is now just rah rah home team cheerleading nonsense everyone does but only the US is accused of. You can argue about degrees but the entire world partaken. No different than the fate of the Confederate flag. Who cares what the original intent was; it was co-opted and reinstated into public life and public spaces by segregationists.

[mugbull]

What i said was pretty much exactly what de Tocqueville said, so i don't know what happened there. It's also still valid to this day, though less so ever since we got involved in world affairs

[mikem]

It has admittedly been decades so my memory may be faulty but I remember an emphasis on "why" as opposed to "result."

To me the results that you are referring to are far more likely explained by Olson's Power and Prosperity than de Tocqueville.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The Chinese won't be 'exceptional' either (although they will think they are, with their Sinocentrist shite). The original concept is a good one as far as 'Murican pride is concerned, so I don't know why they have to ruin it for themselves.

Because they're stupid and don't read books.

[Boydy]

I thought mokbull was some from somewhere in Europe? Czech Republic or something, no? What's all this 'we' shit?

[mugbull]

It has admittedly been decades so my memory may be faulty but I remember an emphasis on "why" as opposed to "result."

To me the results that you are referring to are far more likely explained by Olson's Power and Prosperity than de Tocqueville.

I framed the results in terms of the uniqueness of American history, as well as geographical setting. Pretty much everything in the evolution of human civilization can be explained with geography, the growth of the US especially

[mugbull]

I thought mokbull was some from somewhere in Europe? Czech Republic or something, no? What's all this 'we' shit?

Mom's side is Czech, dad's side is American

[mikem]

I thought mokbull was some from somewhere in Europe? Czech Republic or something, no? What's all this 'we' shit?

Never understood this repeated TTH argument. Why must he be either / or? Why not both / and?

mokbull Then my apologies, did not see that part of your argument, but most American exceptionalism arguments are so devoid of their original context as to be meaningless.

[Boydy]

Look, I'm just trying to belittle him for fun. Take your serious points about identity elsewhere.

[mikem]

Fair enough, I'll leave them to the high minded, logical, model of probity that was the national Brexit debate.

[Boydy]

I'm not claiming 'we're' any better.

[Lewis]

Brexceptionalism. :cool:

[GS]

Lewis Because Mokbull, like Pepe, GS, and pretty much everyone in the US, have no clue what de Tocqueville's concept of Anerican exceptionalism was. It has long since been co-opted by everyone (including the American Communist Party who brought the term back into vogue) to the point of meaninglessness. It is now just rah rah home team cheerleading nonsense everyone does but only the US is accused of. You can argue about degrees but the entire world partaken. No different than the fate of the Confederate flag. Who cares what the original intent was; it was co-opted and reinstated into public life and public spaces by segregationists.

Speak for yourself.

[mikem]

You had Ricardo arguing comparative advantage at one point in time. Peak democracy.

[Spoonsky]

In other news, Bill Clinton paid for Hillary's private email server with taxpayer money. This election could have been so easy...

[John]

Never understood this repeated TTH argument. Why must he be either / or? Why not both / and?

When MokBull first turned up here it was under the guise of a fully Czech future tennis professional, and he posted a load of pictures of some other guy on a bus trip pretending it was him. He then signed up with his current persona but using the name 'Koba', and for a while he'd carry on arguments with himself using the two accounts. Presumably that's clouded the issue in Boydy's mind.

It's only really Mert who that argument comes up with anyway, and there it's just to lol at him. When he's Turkish he'll defend stabbings all day long but when he's American he wants them wiped from the crime stats because those nasty black gang members just can't be controlled.

[mugbull]

To be fair i did get my first kiss under a moonlight sky at a tennis tournament in Croatia

[Shindig]

In other news, Bill Clinton paid for Hillary's private email server with taxpayer money. This election could have been so easy...

Donald paid for his wife with tax payers' money.

[ItalAussie]

Executive summary: Cable news needs a horserace. It’s the only way cable news knows how to fill all the time in the 24 hour cycle, and keep its advertisers happy.

https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinton-scandal-the-press-desperately-wants-exists-but-its-actually-about-trump-6d4291edc324?tse_id=INF_655e7bb0736911e690605f8c08 864990#.ra8ic5jvh

Image (spoiler for size):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrcauInUkAAfJHn.jpg

[John]

Mike Schur posted a load of tweets in that format last week after Trump was a twat when Dwayne Wade's cousin copped it.

769746310043951104

I enjoyed that.

[Bartholomert]

Executive summary: Cable news needs a horserace. It’s the only way cable news knows how to fill all the time in the 24 hour cycle, and keep its advertisers happy.

https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinton-scandal-the-press-desperately-wants-exists-but-its-actually-about-trump-6d4291edc324?tse_id=INF_655e7bb0736911e690605f8c08 864990#.ra8ic5jvh

Image (spoiler for size):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrcauInUkAAfJHn.jpg

Where's the part where he's an elected official engaging in corruption? His whole platform is 'I engaged in this corruption, I was a special interest, this is why I need to be put in charge because I know how to fix it.'

Surely you understanding the distinction?

CNN Poll w/Trump leading 45-43:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8913/heres-why-new-cnn-poll-trump-45-clinton-43-most-ben-shapiro

[ItalAussie]

That is a very odd idea in general.

"I used to be an axe-murderer (I did all the best axe murders), so if you give me an axe, I promise I can stop all the axe murders."

EDIT: "Also, don't vote for my opponent. She used to be an axe-murderer."

[elth]

It takes an astonishing amount of credulity to convince yourself that only someone proven to act corruptly can stop corruption.

[Raoul Duke]

Mental. There's basically some kind of mass Stockholm Syndrome now.

[phonics]

Why are anti-Trump conservatives constantly trapped inside elevators? (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/anti-trump-conservatives-trapped-in-elevators/)

:D

[Bartholomert]

That is a very odd idea in general.

"I used to be an axe-murderer (I did all the best axe murders), so if you give me an axe, I promise I can stop all the axe murders."

EDIT: "Also, don't vote for my opponent. She used to be an axe-murderer."

No. Who else would know how the corruption works? If you haven't been on both sides of the equation, you have no understanding of the means in which it can be stopped. It is 100% rational.

[John]

Trump hasn't been on both sides of the equation so that's that one laid to rest.

[Disco]

It's also utter shit, and if true would make him a terrible candidate for president.

[GS]

The Dallas Morning News supporting Clinton - the first time they've supported a Democrat since FDR at the height of WWII - is good fun. Not that it'll swap many, if any, voters - but it shows not everybody in Texas is a mental.

[Bartholomert]

Trump hasn't been on both sides of the equation so that's that one laid to rest.

But if he was President he would be...

[Bartholomert]

The Dallas Morning News supporting Clinton - the first time they've supported a Democrat since FDR at the height of WWII - is good fun. Not that it'll swap many, if any, voters - but it shows not everybody in Texas is a mental.

Hillary Clinton destroyed her phones with a hammer after they were used so that the emails on them could not be retrieved and then claimed that she, as the Secretary of State, did not know that (c) referred to classified material.

And yes, not voting for her is mental.

[GS]

As they note in their editorial, her misjudgements pale in comparison to Trump's complete ill-preparedness for the job.

You might want to read it, assuming you don't only focus on the propaganda coming from Trump Tower.

[Bartholomert]

Yeah but Trump will have advisers who do most of the heavy lifting who are conservative and probably overall pretty reasonable. Clinton is a guarantee to just further entrench corruption and incompetence with absolutely no alternative outcome.

[phonics]

Considering he keeps firing his advisers and getting even more mental ones by the week. Nah.

[bruhnaldo]

But guys, they probably might be overall pretty reasonable.

[Bartholomert]

But guys, they probably might be overall pretty reasonable.

Better than guaranteed treasonous and corrupt.

[Shindig]

It's America, mate. It's all corrupt. Even you.

[Disco]

Treasonous you could argue but him being corrupt was the centrepiece of your argument not half a page ago.

[GS]

Yeah but Trump will have advisers who do most of the heavy lifting who are conservative and probably overall pretty reasonable. Clinton is a guarantee to just further entrench corruption and incompetence with absolutely no alternative outcome.

This is a patently ludicrous justification for voting Trump. When you're having to cite that he's effectively a prop, or mouthpiece, for unelected 'advisers' to circumvent justified charges that he is himself ill-prepared, you're into seriously choppy waters.

The logical next step, of course, is whether Trump would have the necessary understanding, or indeed willingness, to challenge the view of these invisible, supposedly reasonable advisers in the way that he should. The answer, based on all available evidence thus far, is no. He doesn't do detail, or sensible thought-out policy. He's had over a year in the public eye as part of this process, and that's a more than reasonable timeframe in which to judge that it represents a huge weakness.

You know this, of course. Clinton is an appalling candidate, and a sensible, safe Democratic pick would be sweeping the board. Her misjudgements rightly give people pause, but given the clear alternative here it seems entirely reasonable to support her irrespective of those failings.

Still, Donald Trump. We shouldn't worry about voting for him because a number of invisible, unnamed, shadowy and unelected special advisers will actually do all the heavy lifting and he'll just articulate what they tell him to. Great. It'll be like when the Nazis set up Petain at Vichy and told him what his country's policies were going to be from now on.

[ItalAussie]

1. Vote for Trump, because of his history of unrepentant corruption and bribery.
2. Vote for Trump, because he's not actually going to make decisions (except when he wants to).

The state of that.

[Bartholomert]

This is a patently ludicrous justification for voting Trump. When you're having to cite that he's effectively a prop, or mouthpiece, for unelected 'advisers' to circumvent justified charges that he is himself ill-prepared, you're into seriously choppy waters.

The logical next step, of course, is whether Trump would have the necessary understanding, or indeed willingness, to challenge the view of these invisible, supposedly reasonable advisers in the way that he should. The answer, based on all available evidence thus far, is no. He doesn't do detail, or sensible thought-out policy. He's had over a year in the public eye as part of this process, and that's a more than reasonable timeframe in which to judge that it represents a huge weakness.

You know this, of course. Clinton is an appalling candidate, and a sensible, safe Democratic pick would be sweeping the board. Her misjudgements rightly give people pause, but given the clear alternative here it seems entirely reasonable to support her irrespective of those failings.

Still, Donald Trump. We shouldn't worry about voting for him because a number of invisible, unnamed, shadowy and unelected special advisers will actually do all the heavy lifting and he'll just articulate what they tell him to. Great. It'll be like when the Nazis set up Petain at Vichy and told him what his country's policies were going to be from now on.

Yeah but those advisors are principled patriots known to the Republican base with extensive track records, the sort of people that won't just sell 20% of US uranium reserves in return for a few million dollars in speaking fees. I'll take my chances.

[GS]

So you're prepared to allow unelected advisors to run the country without any participation, check or challenge by the elected politician, with said elected politician acting solely as a conduit for their decisions to be implemented.

The fucking state of you.

[Lewis]

That will be the result regardless.

[mugbull]

Recent polls are actually pretty worrying. Most of the battleground states still seem to be in Clinton's favor, but that can still change. Debates are going to be really intense

[GS]

Perhaps, but one assumes that the holder of elected office should have the competence to challenge advice, actually proffer a different idea, have some developed policies in mind etc. It's not like you're voting for Mayor of Wasilla, you're voting for the fucking President. Not only that, but ultimately if President Trump decides to do something stupid then it's not as if his advisers can stop him, even if they are 'patriots'.

If you accept that Trump is too ill-prepared to do any of that and he's just going to wave everything through, then we might as well impose a technocratic government and be done with it. A Mario Monti for the new American century.

[GS]

Recent polls are actually pretty worrying. Most of the battleground states still seem to be in Clinton's favor, but that can still change. Debates are going to be really intense

He's not going to win. I wouldn't worry.

[ItalAussie]

Today's political news in a nutshell:


Trump calls Clinton a warmonger while pitching military expansion

[ItalAussie]

Just a reminder that the Republicans aren't victims here, but really, truly have the leader they deserve.


A bill to fund efforts against the Zika virus collapses, after the GOP tries to include provisions defunding Planned Parenthood, and overturning a ban on the Confederate flag at veterans' cemeteries.

It's like a party populated by six-year olds. And not "reading at or above grade level" six-year olds, either.

[Bartholomert]

So you're prepared to allow unelected advisors to run the country without any participation, check or challenge by the elected politician, with said elected politician acting solely as a conduit for their decisions to be implemented.

The fucking state of you.

...the President is always largely a figurehead, it's his broad platform that receives a mandate from the people.

What planet do you live on where democracy doesn't work exactly how I just described it anyways?

[Bartholomert]

He's not going to win. I wouldn't worry.

He's 100% going to win, as I've been saying for months now. You don't know America.

[Bartholomert]

Just a reminder that the Republicans aren't victims here, but really, truly have the leader they deserve.

It's like a party populated by six-year olds. And not "reading at or above grade level" six-year olds, either.

You realize both parties do that all the time right? It's called democracy, when you have more of your allies in Congress, you get to pass legislation that your constituents want to see implemented.

[Bartholomert]

Recent polls are actually pretty worrying. Most of the battleground states still seem to be in Clinton's favor, but that can still change. Debates are going to be really intense

He's down 4 in New Jersey (Obama won by 18) and down 3 in Rhode Island (Obama won by 27) and is winning one of the Congressional districts in Maine (Obama won by 15; no Republican has won a delegate since the 80s).

https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/polls/2016/09/07/trump-threatens-new-jersey-rhode-island-clinton-leads-new-england-states/

Recent battleground state polls in the critical states all have Trump either winning or within the margin of error. Effective performances in the debate and Hillary is done, the media has shot itself in the foot, any halfway decent performance will be perceived as an incredible triumph by a public who has been told incessantly that Trump is a cartoon character monster.

[ItalAussie]

You realize both parties do that all the time right? It's called democracy, when you have more of your allies in Congress, you get to pass legislation that your constituents want to see implemented.

I would have assumed that they'd recognise the importance of a public health bill to counter a serious (and already global) health risk, and let it through without infecting it with political hack stuff. Like real grownup politicians manage to do in real functional democracies every day.

It shouldn't bother you really though. I think we both agree with the thesis statement - the Republicans have the leader they deserve. Why we feel that way might be slightly different, of course. :D

[John Arne]

Current odds have Hilary 2/5 with Trumpo at 7/4.

Ted Cruz at 500/1....

[Bartholomert]

I would have assumed that they'd recognise the importance of a public health bill to counter a serious (and already global) health risk, and let it through without infecting it with political hack stuff. Like real grownup politicians manage to do in real functional democracies every day.

It shouldn't bother you really though. I think we both agree with the thesis statement - the Republicans have the leader they deserve. Why we feel that way might be slightly different, of course. :D

Democrats do the exact same shit. Welcome to politics. Why can't Democrats put aside their political differences and take the loss for the greater good? It goes both ways as difficult as that is to comprehend for someone consumed by their own dazzling lack of perspective and awareness.

[ItalAussie]

If the Republicans wanted to put forward the Zika, Abortion and Celebrating Slavery bill, they should have done so. Or, like proper grownups in other countries, you don't try and wedge irrelevant shit into actually important necessary bills.

They sunk a vital public health measure by making it unviable. They did that. And not that I think it to be deeply relevant (the Democratic Party can be childish, but nowhere near "sink a critical public health bill to get slave flags flying in military cemeteries" childish), but as far as stopped clocks go:


"Well they did it too" is not an argument to justify poor ethical decisions.

[Bartholomert]

I'm not defending what the Republicans did, I'm exposing you for the ignorant hypocrite you are. Democrats could save lives, but they'd rather not 'cave' politically. There is just as much blood on their hands as there is on the Republicans.

Of course you don't see this because you have a pathological inability (you have serious psychological issues, probably stemming from your entire self worth being derived from your high conception of your own intelligence, which makes you incapable of accepting alternative points of views) to find Democrats at fault for anything.