[HoosierDaddy]

Briar King, on 17 March 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Terez, on 17 March 2016 - 06:46 PM, said:

Briar King, on 17 March 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

Yep not feeling her response vid at all. Not even bothering to post the failure.

What are you talking about? It doesn't seem to follow anything in the previous posts.

Her vid response to Trumps yesterday. They just copied his vid and placed something of Trump in her barking part. I didn't even raise my brows watching so I consider it a fail.

Just an FYI, nobody here is watching Trump's stream as anything other than entertainment. He is a joke, a blowhard, an embarrassment to the electoral system, and somehow still viable because he spouts more shit than any actual politician would ever get away with. So, that being said, you need to tell us what he is saying if you want us to know.

I assume it is xenophobic, uneducated, and complete idiocy until he says something that proves otherwise.

[Terez]

BK did post the Trump video a while back; we had just changed the subject since then so I didn't understand that's what he was talking about.

Some interesting Senate races to watch:

Kelly Ayotte (GOP) is being challenged by the governor of New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan (D).

Rob Portman (GOP), who was considered for Romney's VP, is being challenged by former governor of Ohio Dan Strickland (D). Rob Portman was the first Republican senator to come out in favor of same-sex marriage. He has a gay son.

Ron Johnson (GOP) ousted 3-term Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold (D) in the 2010 Tea Party wave. Now Russ is running to take his seat back. Democrats in Wisconsin have terrible midterm turnout; Feingold should take this easy barring some kind of scandal or crisis. Feingold is slightly to the left of Bernie Sanders.

Mark Kirk (GOP), another 2010 phenomenon, is being challenged by Illinois Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth (D), a veteran who lost her legs in Iraq. I voted for her in the primary, and I'm thinking about volunteering for her campaign. (I've never worked on a campaign before.)

Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader (D), is retiring. Looks like a neck-and-neck race between former Nevada AG Catherine Cortez Masto (D) and GOP congressman Joe Heck.

Feingold will probably beat Johnson and Duckworth will probably beat Kirk. The other races appear to be genuine tossups. There are a few other races that might become interesting as time goes on; you can view them here.

[worry]

The Dem establishment is doing its darndest to turn off anyone left of center.

Anyone challenging an incumbent is shut out of data, like they attempted with Sanders. What a convenient policy for Wasserman Schultz: http://www.browardpa...er-file-7652217

NYT editors hack up a positive article on Bernie in a naked display of non-journalism to make him seem worse:
http://publiceditor....-public-editor/

^^^Might be convenient for any of you (wink wink) confronted with the bizarre claim that the NYT is a far left paper.

[Illuyankas]

DWS needs to be thrown out immediately, and ideally into a bin, despite her previous threats to smear people* doing so as misogynist anti-semites.

*her fucking president


Also Tammy Duckworth owns.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 17 March 2016 - 11:35 PM

[Terez]

Zoolanderis Derake, on 17 March 2016 - 10:48 PM, said:

The Dem establishment is doing its darndest to turn off anyone left of center.

There is only so much they can do. They won't touch Feingold, for example, but he's not challenging another Democrat.

I just found Tammy Duckworth's campaign on Twitter @TammyforIL. She's showing some recognition that nearly half her state voted for Bernie. Her record on campaign finance is solid, if not particularly vocal. She doesn't get money from banks, and she has voted against a few industry-lobbied bills. We'll see how she does with campaign finance in a high-profile Senate race.

Zoolanderis Derake, on 17 March 2016 - 10:48 PM, said:

NYT editors hack up a positive article on Bernie in a naked display of non-journalism to make him seem worse:
http://publiceditor....-public-editor/

Taibbi wrote this one up:

How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders

[EmperorMagus]

Bubba, on 17 March 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 17 March 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

oh,
You're subscribed to The_Donald.

Also, What kind of mod Rickrolls people in the DB?

Don't let the online name "Bubba" fool you, I chose that name to mislead the people on the otherside of the pond......I would never subscribe to The_Donald

But if you want to see what social manipulation looks like, browse Reddit from the "All" tab.

What do you mean by social manipulation?
I've been browsing All for a few minutes and I admit it's a funnier reddit experience but it's nothing really special.
Also The barking ad was incredibely offensive IMO, I don't even know what he meant by it. This is The_Donald's opinion.

[HoosierDaddy]

I'd suggest you filter The_Donald if you want to remain sane. I'm not sure if those people are trolls or fascists but it's one or the other.

[EmperorMagus]

HoosierDaddy, on 18 March 2016 - 03:12 AM, said:

I'd suggest you filter The_Donald if you want to remain sane. I'm not sure if those people are trolls or fascists but it's one or the other.

It's excellent entertainment.
As I've said over and over again, it's like a trainwreck. You want to look away, but you just can't.

I saw this two videos on reddit, which I found interesting.

The way donald speaks right now:
http://youtu.be/_aFo_BV-UzI


The way he speaks in serious situations:

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 18 March 2016 - 03:18 AM

[Tsundoku]

I'm of two minds on the 3 Trumps theory.

You know the one:

1. What he says to get the Rep nom.
2. What he says to get elected.
3. What he says and does if elected.

Surely he's just a caricature of himself at the moment to ride the crazy wave. Surely.

[Andorion]

Our local English daily has brought out an article about how Trump getting elected is bad/dangerous for the world....

[Terez]

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

Our local English daily has brought out an article about how Trump getting elected is bad/dangerous for the world....

Just now? lol. They were probably just on top of today's trending freakout from The Economist. I don't want to pretend like a Trump presidency wouldn't be dangerous, but I'd take that with a grain of salt. Their list of fears begins with his opposition to NAFTA, of all things.

PS: If Bubba is still hanging about, it would be good to hear his thoughts on the Ayotte race and whether Hassan has a chance to beat her. A longtime poster on Theoryland who is from Vermont noted that US senator is a step up from governor in terms of status and power. That seems to also be the case in New Hampshire.

This post has been edited by Terez: 18 March 2016 - 05:30 AM

[Andorion]

Terez, on 18 March 2016 - 05:28 AM, said:

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

Our local English daily has brought out an article about how Trump getting elected is bad/dangerous for the world....

Just now? lol. They were probably just on top of today's trending freakout from The Economist. I don't want to pretend like a Trump presidency wouldn't be dangerous, but I'd take that with a grain of salt. Their list of fears begins with his opposition to NAFTA, of all things.

PS: If Bubba is still hanging about, it would be good to hear his thoughts on the Ayotte race and whether Hassan has a chance to beat her. A longtime poster on Theoryland who is from Vermont noted that US senator is a step up from governor in terms of status and power. That seems to also be the case in New Hampshire.

I think that's the article they were basing on..... though they did say his getting elected would be equal to the world getting totally destabilized by terrorists, so I guess they called him ISIS?

I would be really happy if the USA got a President who did not keep giving Pakistan so many weapons and so much money as most of that "aid" is channelled into anti-India terrorist activities.

I never understand why people don't get that Pakistan is a major supporter of state sponsored terrorism. It doesn't matter what the civilian leaders say, their army controls everything.

[Terez]

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

Terez, on 18 March 2016 - 05:28 AM, said:

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

Our local English daily has brought out an article about how Trump getting elected is bad/dangerous for the world....

Just now? lol. They were probably just on top of today's trending freakout from The Economist. I don't want to pretend like a Trump presidency wouldn't be dangerous, but I'd take that with a grain of salt. Their list of fears begins with his opposition to NAFTA, of all things.

I think that's the article they were basing on..... though they did say his getting elected would be equal to the world getting totally destabilized by terrorists, so I guess they called him ISIS?

This is their top 10 danger list. They have Trump tied with ISIS.

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

I would be really happy if the USA got a President who did not keep giving Pakistan so many weapons and so much money as most of that "aid" is channelled into anti-India terrorist activities.

I never understand why people don't get that Pakistan is a major supporter of state sponsored terrorism. It doesn't matter what the civilian leaders say, their army controls everything.

Our relationship with Pakistan is tricky as fuck. We need them (supposedly), but the whole history of our "alliance" with them is a story of them stabbing us in the back over and over again. No one believes they didn't know exactly where OBL was hiding.

This post has been edited by Terez: 18 March 2016 - 05:49 AM

[Andorion]

Terez, on 18 March 2016 - 05:47 AM, said:

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

Terez, on 18 March 2016 - 05:28 AM, said:

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

Our local English daily has brought out an article about how Trump getting elected is bad/dangerous for the world....

Just now? lol. They were probably just on top of today's trending freakout from The Economist. I don't want to pretend like a Trump presidency wouldn't be dangerous, but I'd take that with a grain of salt. Their list of fears begins with his opposition to NAFTA, of all things.

I think that's the article they were basing on..... though they did say his getting elected would be equal to the world getting totally destabilized by terrorists, so I guess they called him ISIS?

This is their top 10 danger list. They have Trump tied with ISIS.

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

I would be really happy if the USA got a President who did not keep giving Pakistan so many weapons and so much money as most of that "aid" is channelled into anti-India terrorist activities.

I never understand why people don't get that Pakistan is a major supporter of state sponsored terrorism. It doesn't matter what the civilian leaders say, their army controls everything.

Our relationship with Pakistan is tricky as fuck. We need them (supposedly), but the whole history of our "alliance" with them is a story of them stabbing us in the back over and over again. No one believes they didn't know exactly where OBL was hiding.

I agree that the Chinese economy is probably the most serious problem. I really don't think the Russian situation could have Cold War like effects. Russian economy would collapse.

As for Pakistan, just this year our PM dropped in on the Pakistani PM for his birthday. It was fantastic PR. Within a few days terrorists attack a major Indian air base - every front step we take, the terrorists set us three steps back .


Edit: And then USA announced the proposed F16 sale. American politicians in general need to understand that India and USA can have a much more fruitful relationship than the one involving Pakistan. The main reason Taliban and Al Qaeda were not totally eliminated in Afghanistan is that they used the porous Pak Afghan border to ride out the heat.

This post has been edited by Andorion: 18 March 2016 - 06:37 AM

[EmperorMagus]

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 06:35 AM, said:

I agree that the Chinese economy is probably the most serious problem. I really don't think the Russian situation could have Cold War like effects. Russian economy would collapse.

As for Pakistan, just this year our PM dropped in on the Pakistani PM for his birthday. It was fantastic PR. Within a few days terrorists attack a major Indian air base - every front step we take, the terrorists set us three steps back .


Edit: And then USA announced the proposed F16 sale. American politicians in general need to understand that India and USA can have a much more fruitful relationship than the one involving Pakistan. The main reason Taliban and Al Qaeda were not totally eliminated in Afghanistan is that they used the porous Pak Afghan border to ride out the heat.

I'm not sure whether this theory is correct or not, but I think the issue here is oil. (again)
Pakistan is allied with SA, and the US needs SA oil, so they tolerate the Pakistani support of terrorism the same way the tolerate the Saudi support.
Further, Pakistan is the only country who can actually interfere fast enough if Iran decides to block the Hormuz Channel, through which a ridiculous percent of the world's oil passes. A couple sunk ships in there and the price of oil sky rockets.

It may also be the fear of nukes in terrorist hands that keeps the US close to Pakistan.

[Andorion]

EmperorMagus, on 18 March 2016 - 06:54 AM, said:

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 06:35 AM, said:

I agree that the Chinese economy is probably the most serious problem. I really don't think the Russian situation could have Cold War like effects. Russian economy would collapse.

As for Pakistan, just this year our PM dropped in on the Pakistani PM for his birthday. It was fantastic PR. Within a few days terrorists attack a major Indian air base - every front step we take, the terrorists set us three steps back .


Edit: And then USA announced the proposed F16 sale. American politicians in general need to understand that India and USA can have a much more fruitful relationship than the one involving Pakistan. The main reason Taliban and Al Qaeda were not totally eliminated in Afghanistan is that they used the porous Pak Afghan border to ride out the heat.

I'm not sure whether this theory is correct or not, but I think the issue here is oil. (again)
Pakistan is allied with SA, and the US needs SA oil, so they tolerate the Pakistani support of terrorism the same way the tolerate the Saudi support.
Further, Pakistan is the only country who can actually interfere fast enough if Iran decides to block the Hormuz Channel, through which a ridiculous percent of the world's oil passes. A couple sunk ships in there and the price of oil sky rockets.

It may also be the fear of nukes in terrorist hands that keeps the US close to Pakistan.

I never understand how USA does not see that oil is a very short term gain, and that taking a tougher stance on SA could cut terror funding in half. Seriously, how do Ivy league trained policymakers fuck up this bad?

As for Pakistani nukes, USA has the Special Forces muscle to infiltrate and neutralise the Pak nuclear arsenal. They should do that. A state half under thrall of ISIS level ideologues is no place for nukes

[Nevyn]

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

I never understand how USA does not see that oil is a very short term gain, and that taking a tougher stance on SA could cut terror funding in half. Seriously, how do Ivy league trained policymakers fuck up this bad?

As for Pakistani nukes, USA has the Special Forces muscle to infiltrate and neutralise the Pak nuclear arsenal. They should do that. A state half under thrall of ISIS level ideologues is no place for nukes

With respect, those both seem like overly simplistic notions.

The US cutting off Saudi Arabia does not cut off the Saudis money. They still have lots of money, and many other customers for their oil. It just shuts the american oil companies out of the profits and turns an official ally into who knows what.

As for doing special forces raids on the nuclear arsenal of another country the US is not officially at war with, at minimum you'd be looking at a massive international backlash. And that is assuming you managed to commit your act of war with 100% efficiency and before anything could be launched, and you had perfect intelligence on where Pakistani nukes were (hopefully not the same spies tracking WMDs in Iraq).

Then you also get into unintended consequences. Pakistan did not develop nukes because of the west, they have ages old regional conflicts. So what do China and India then do with a country that can't punch back?

And how much recruiting does ISIS do in a country the US has stripped of its nukes, and another the US has tried to shut off economically?

[QuickTidal]

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

I never understand how USA does not see that oil is a very short term gain, and that taking a tougher stance on SA could cut terror funding in half. Seriously, how do Ivy league trained policymakers fuck up this bad?

This is unfortunately how they operate, living on borrowed sunlight because it's still making the rich rich (and that's the corporate bottom line)...and Canada is no stranger to such mentalities either, as the whole Alberta oil sands thing proves (literally sifting goddamned oil out of sandy deposits in northern Alberta). I will admit that a big PART of the issue has been put forth by some scientists that IF we were to just cut off oil supplies, society could not handle the immediate wobble it creates. It would, in effect, be chaos. The real path is through a slow switching to alternate sources of energy (example: like getting families to start buying Tesla electric cars...AKA making it affordable for the average joe who drives to do so; I think the sedan is moderately affordable but the new SUV (the Model X) is over $100,000) so that we are all weaned off oil and it doesn't destroy the economy in the process. The problem is that no one currently in power gives a shit about that day when we finally run out of ancient sunlight (oil). They care about dollar bills. The finite nature of oil means that day is indeed coming (general consensus puts it at about 35ish years from now?), and without the slow switch that is required...the above chaotic scenario WILL occur. Until then, places like SA will remain super important to the US and other countries who depend on oil. We should have been tapping into alternate energy on the large scale in the 1990's...but the pace is glacial...and the only reason I can come up with is "oil=money".

[HoosierDaddy]

QuickTidal, on 18 March 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

I never understand how USA does not see that oil is a very short term gain, and that taking a tougher stance on SA could cut terror funding in half. Seriously, how do Ivy league trained policymakers fuck up this bad?

This is unfortunately how they operate, living on borrowed sunlight because it's still making the rich rich (and that's the corporate bottom line)...and Canada is no stranger to such mentalities either, as the whole Alberta oil sands thing proves (literally sifting goddamned oil out of sandy deposits in northern Alberta). I will admit that a big PART of the issue has been put forth by some scientists that IF we were to just cut off oil supplies, society could not handle the immediate wobble it creates. It would, in effect, be chaos. The real path is through a slow switching to alternate sources of energy (example: like getting families to start buying Tesla electric cars...AKA making it affordable for the average joe who drives to do so; I think the sedan is moderately affordable but the new SUV (the Model X) is over $100,000) so that we are all weaned off oil and it doesn't destroy the economy in the process. The problem is that no one currently in power gives a shit about that day when we finally run out of ancient sunlight (oil). They care about dollar bills. The finite nature of oil means that day is indeed coming (general consensus puts it at about 35ish years from now?), and without the slow switch that is required...the above chaotic scenario WILL occur. Until then, places like SA will remain super important to the US and other countries who depend on oil. We should have been tapping into alternate energy on the large scale in the 1990's...but the pace is glacial...and the only reason I can come up with is "oil=money".

I.e.: money. It all comes down to money. Renewable energy is bad for the oil producers.

[Mentalist]

QuickTidal, on 18 March 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

I never understand how USA does not see that oil is a very short term gain, and that taking a tougher stance on SA could cut terror funding in half. Seriously, how do Ivy league trained policymakers fuck up this bad?

This is unfortunately how they operate, living on borrowed sunlight because it's still making the rich rich (and that's the corporate bottom line)...and Canada is no stranger to such mentalities either, as the whole Alberta oil sands thing proves (literally sifting goddamned oil out of sandy deposits in northern Alberta). I will admit that a big PART of the issue has been put forth by some scientists that IF we were to just cut off oil supplies, society could not handle the immediate wobble it creates. It would, in effect, be chaos. The real path is through a slow switching to alternate sources of energy (example: like getting families to start buying Tesla electric cars...AKA making it affordable for the average joe who drives to do so; I think the sedan is moderately affordable but the new SUV (the Model X) is over $100,000) so that we are all weaned off oil and it doesn't destroy the economy in the process. The problem is that no one currently in power gives a shit about that day when we finally run out of ancient sunlight (oil). They care about dollar bills. The finite nature of oil means that day is indeed coming (general consensus puts it at about 35ish years from now?), and without the slow switch that is required...the above chaotic scenario WILL occur. Until then, places like SA will remain super important to the US and other countries who depend on oil. We should have been tapping into alternate energy on the large scale in the 1990's...but the pace is glacial...and the only reason I can come up with is "oil=money".

This. But here's my even more pessimistic take. Even if we go green energy-wise, we're still hooked on hydrocarbons (oil and gas), because it's where plastics come from. As well as things like cosmetics, apparently. Basically, our civilization is based on consumption of hydrocarbons. When the crash comes it'll be really bad.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 18 March 2016 - 02:27 PM