The Refuge of the Toads

[HunnyBunny]

Labour is completely fucked. Sadiq Kahn (London Mayor) came out in support of Owen Jones. The knives are out. It's a shame, because much as I hate Labour for the Blair years & think Corbyn is a twat, democracy needs a functioning opposition that aren't a bunch of racist ideologues.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqaLlTDXYAEzR5n.jpg

[Oglebart]

This was the picture I was looking for yesterday, this is the podium shot :shock:

http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1 ... /image.jpg

[feathers]

Accept this offering for I have sinned.

http://i.imgur.com/6EPWhDo.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/smmMK3b.jpg

So I should buy a Toyota to visit the Spar, right?

[Keating]

I'll probably get some crap for this, but…

Looks like the "unskewed" people are back and didn't learn their lesson from last time. I can't see why anybody here would vote for him considering he is a climate change denier and anti-vaccine crank as well as a bad businessman.

I know an Australian prognosticating on the US election is always weird, but the US does still have such a huge influence over us, that it seems fair.

I still would seriously prefer to see a Trump presidency. My reasons are selfish; I want to see the TPP killed, and Australia to not be dragged into more foreign adventuring in the name of Freedom and Democracy. Both of which seem exceptionally more likely to be the case under a Trump presidency than a Clinton presidency.

I don't really care what the president does the rest of the time as they leave us the fuck alone.

But, if I was a US citizen, I'd be voting Trump. My reason is exactly what Kirbmarc said:

Hillary Clinton is unlikely to ditch the Saudis, but she's not likely to simply go to war with Russia (over what?).

What's far more likely is four more years of business as usual.

I don't think the status quo is sustainable. Four more years just means the obvious problems that are already showing themselves will get significantly worse and intractable. At this point, I'd be prepared to risk burning the entire system down now (which is going to happen eventually on a status quo path), on the chance, however slim, that real necessary change could happen. It's the same reason I'd have voted for Brexit and for Euro-skeptic parties in Europe if I were a citizen there. (I am actually, as I have dual citizenship, but I choose not to vote in their elections as I don't pay close enough attention to local politics).

I can't care about climate change anymore. Not because I don't think it's a problem, but because no one will address the obvious problem of human population. Why the fuck did I work hard to reduce my water consumption during the most recent drought, only to have the ACT government continue to push for Canberra to become a city of half a million people? What is the point of reducing my environmental footprint, if the federal government thinks it would be great if Australia had 50 million people living here?

I've only worked for a small businesses. Of the ones I've worked for, 2 were run by people who had started several different companies over their careers. Most businesses fail, and it doesn't matter how good your product is. I've come to greatly admire all my current and past bosses who believed enough in their idea to start a business on it, sometimes risking it all. In that light, Trump clearly has a successful primary business (real estate), and he's used his brand to, far more often than not, successfully start new ventures. My experience leads me to respect his business competence, although I'm certainly not surprised, nor would I expect, him to be successful in everything he's done. There's been more than enough times when I've thought that what my boss was doing was not good strategically, but, in the end, it's their risk, and I'm just along for the ride.

And none of that even touches on what a horrible candidate Clinton is.

None of that says I expect a Trump victory, or I'm banking on it. They're just my reasons for why I think a Trump presidency is preferable.

[Kirbmarc]

I still would seriously prefer to see a Trump presidency. My reasons are selfish; I want to see the TPP killed, and Australia to not be dragged into more foreign adventuring in the name of Freedom and Democracy. Both of which seem exceptionally more likely to be the case under a Trump presidency than a Clinton presidency.

The TPP is, indeed, pretty terrible, especially the parts about copyright laws, private investors suing one of the signers for damages in violation of the treaty and labor standards. It benefits pretty much only corporate interests, especially American ones.

[Clarence]

[quote="Kirbmarc"

I don't think that anyone wants direct military action against Russia. It's simply too unproductive. What's happening is that Russia and the US are struggling for the control of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, carrying on the "Great Game" of old between the British and Russian Empire. Nobody on either side wants an open war, they want to control strategic points for the control of oil and other resources (which may mean supporting local conflicts, of course).[/quote]

*Snip of alot of goods stuff, but the post was too long to post*
I wish I could believe you are right, but I've read quite a bit of the neocon reactions to Trump (and over the past 10 years) reactions to Russia. Many of them really do (or pretend to, its the same thing) think Putin is Hitler. And Trump is a traitor to the country to even think of making peace with him. You claim it's the Great Game (and I admit to thinking that myself at times) but I've never been able to figure out what geopolitical interest the American nation as a whole has in the middle east or in so implacably opposing just about anything Putin does in Europe. I mean, OIL would seem to be the obvious thing, right? Except we didn't permanently seize ANY of the oil capacity we 'recovered' in Iraq, and , indeed, it looks like their oil production (barrels per day) STILL hasn't fully recovered.

I've come to the conclusion that most of it isn't a 'Great Game' but "Great Profiteering" because I'll be damned if I can make heads or tails of the US policy in terms of what the country gains by doing what is doing. We lose $ and blood, we get nothing in return except more hatred. And what do we 'gain' by keeping Russia down? I'll admit that from a strictly utilitarian point of view I also question what we 'gain' (except more instability) by expanding NATO (because the Russian bear feels more 'trapped')to include the former EE countries, but the humanitarian human rights activist in me feels sympathy and is overall ok with the decision. But interfering in Ukraine? Why? Interfering in Syria when we are fighting with our supposed enemy (AQ) ? Why? And the rhetoric being used against Putin's Russia (and no, while no 'dictatorship' or 'evil' regime, Russia isn't the nicest country in the world, but STILL) seems to be borrowed from Reagans Evil Empire speeches.

Maybe the only real reasons for what the US is doing vis-a-vis Russia are:
A. Private profiteering
B. The Defense Money (spice) must flow, an enemy is needed
C. It justifies not only the insane 'defense' budget but also the military size to justify it
D. Distract the populace from the fact that US 'society' is a schizophrenic, divided mess, and that no one is doing anything about that.

[screwtape]

http://i32.tinypic.com/35lwwmw.jpg

Yes, indeed. Much better after having shaved.

[Brive1987]

http://i32.tinypic.com/35lwwmw.jpg

Yeah. No.

[HunnyBunny]

I still would seriously prefer to see a Trump presidency. My reasons are selfish; I want to see the TPP killed, and Australia to not be dragged into more foreign adventuring in the name of Freedom and Democracy. Both of which seem exceptionally more likely to be the case under a Trump presidency than a Clinton presidency.

The TPP is, indeed, pretty terrible, especially the parts about copyright laws, private investors suing one of the signers for damages in violation of the treaty and labor standards. It benefits pretty much only corporate interests, especially American ones.

And yet, for all its terribleness the mainstream media remains mostly shtum about the whole TTP & its European partner the TTIP controversy. Sure the censorship net is pretty tight, but fuss even over that is not being made. It's almost like it's all one...big...conspiracy.

[Keating]

Transphobe.

[Hunt]

Accept this offering for I have sinned.

As long as you haven't bankrupted the family account on Vaseline, it's all good.

[Hunt]

Testosterone is definitely part of the patriarchy.

[Keating]

And yet, for all its terribleness the mainstream media remains mostly shtum about the whole TTP & its European partner the TTIP controversy. Sure the censorship net is pretty tight, but fuss even over that is not being made. It's almost like it's all one...big...conspiracy.

It's not not like pretty much all news companies are owned by a major corporations of the kind that mostly benefits from the kind of "free trade" in those treaties.

[Shatterface]

I don't know how to embed now but this short video of a black guy calling out BLM and the Black Panthers for ignoring the floods in Louisiana is worth watching.



Maybe they are busy renaming buildings in Yale or something.

[HunnyBunny]

Accept this offering for I have sinned.

As long as you haven't bankrupted the family account on Vaseline, it's all good.

I just read a post that probably required a lot of vaseline to research. Over at The Orbit, a trans-woman has posted about sex after acquiring a vagina. Having lost a dick, but remaining attracted to real vagina people, the author found using a strap-on was the most sexually satisfying.

:twatson:

[Kirbmarc]

*Snip of alot of goods stuff, but the post was too long to post*
I wish I could believe you are right, but I've read quite a bit of the neocon reactions to Trump (and over the past 10 years) reactions to Russia. Many of them really do (or pretend to, its the same thing) think Putin is Hitler. And Trump is a traitor to the country to even think of making peace with him. You claim it's the Great Game (and I admit to thinking that myself at times) but I've never been able to figure out what geopolitical interest the American nation as a whole has in the middle east or in so implacably opposing just about anything Putin does in Europe. I mean, OIL would seem to be the obvious thing, right? Except we didn't permanently seize ANY of the oil capacity we 'recovered' in Iraq, and , indeed, it looks like their oil production (barrels per day) STILL hasn't fully recovered.

That's a good question. Keating posted a decent video about the issue a few days ago. Basically it's not about seizing oil, it's about making sure that oil is sold in dollars. Oil production in Iraq ultimately doesn't matter, toppling Saddam (and Gaddafi, and -in their plans- Assad) was about sending a message: sell your oil in dollars and don't even plan to do otherwise, or else.

Iran, on the other hand, is trying to set up plans to peg the price of their oil to a different currency. Any different currency, really: Euros, Rubles, a unified currency of their own league of nations within the OPEC, it doesn't really matter. So far their plans have failed badly, but they are winning the propaganda war by crushing the Islamic State. China, Russia and potentially even some European countries might be interested. The US can't let it happen unless they have a contingency plan.

A good way to deal with this situations would be a compromise with Russia and Iran ("we lift the sanctions and give you some help, you accept to keep paying in dollars"), but that makes Turkey, the Saudis and Israel unhappy, and that's a big no-no for people who have ties with their lobbies. So Putin (who's far from a liberal democratic leader, mind, and has a few interests on his own) is painted as Hitler in the propaganda, when he's actually closer to Francisco Franco or Augusto Pinochet: he's a dictator who kills journalists who criticize him, is an authoritarian reactionary and uses the Orthodox Church for political means but he's not a genocidal monster, and most of all he's not suicidal or stupid.

I've come to the conclusion that most of it isn't a 'Great Game' but "Great Profiteering" because I'll be damned if I can make heads or tails of the US policy in terms of what the country gains by doing what is doing. We lose $ and blood, we get nothing in return except more hatred. And what do we 'gain' by keeping Russia down? I'll admit that from a strictly utilitarian point of view I also question what we 'gain' (except more instability) by expanding NATO (because the Russian bear feels more 'trapped')to include the former EE countries, but the humanitarian human rights activist in me feels sympathy and is overall ok with the decision. But interfering in Ukraine? Why? Interfering in Syria when we are fighting with our supposed enemy (AQ) ? Why? And the rhetoric being used against Putin's Russia (and no, while no 'dictatorship' or 'evil' regime, Russia isn't the nicest country in the world, but STILL) seems to be borrowed from Reagans Evil Empire speeches.

The Great Game is all Great Profiteering. It always has been. What has "the West" gained from expanding NATO and the EU? Cheap labor and new markets. The Ukraine? It was about Germany's interests in getting it to join the EU (more cheap labor) and the US' interests to stop a Russian pipeline that was a threat to the American interests in OPEC. Syria? As I said, sending a message about not even thinking about joining Iran in a parallel OPEC. It backfired. Badly.

What do you, as a private citizen, get from all of this, is another question. The problem is that the American economy is tied to the petro-dollars, and it needs a complete overhaul in order to function without them. For some time the think-tanks have thought that by destabilizing anyone who didn't toe the line (and closing two eyes about what Saudi Arabia and their other petro-states were up to) they could keep a grip on the petro-dollar regime. This isn't working anymore, and I think they're clever enough to have realized it, even without President Trump.

Hell, John Kerry has slowly tried to disentangle the US from the alliance with the Saudis and to come to a decent compromise with Iran. It was a far cry from Dubya's "Axis of Evil" rhetoric.

Oh, and Russia is a dictatorship. Journalists who criticize Putin or expose his dealings with mobsters are routinely killed. Free speech is basically not existent. Putin has killed or imprisoned all the other oligarch and has made deals with the mobs to keep things quiet (they repay the favor by killing the journalists I wrote about). He's the new Czar, and he's probably going to rule Russia until he dies.

What Russia isn't, however, is a genocidal or totalitarian regime (like the Islamic State), and Putin is well liked by many (if not most) Russians because he made their economy relatively stable after a period of choas (although they're going to have big problems in the future) since he's actually a decent manager (especially when compared to his perpetually drunk predecessor) and he's making sure that their children don't "catch Teh Gay" while he kneels before an altar and kisses old crucifixes.

As for why propaganda paints him as the next Hitler, well, it's all saber-rattling and venom spewing for political gain. Reagan didn't attack the Soviet Union, either (although he made a good job of making the Soviet elite scared). I don't think that anyone is really stupid enough to start a war with Russia. I think that even under Hillary the think-tanks will have to rethink their strategy. It's a pity that she will probably

Maybe the only real reasons for what the US is doing vis-a-vis Russia are:
A. Private profiteering
B. The Defense Money (spice) must flow, an enemy is needed
C. It justifies not only the insane 'defense' budget but also the military size to justify it
D. Distract the populace from the fact that US 'society' is a schizophrenic, divided mess, and that no one is doing anything about that.

Close enough. It's about keeping oil prices pegged to the dollar and making sure that the US economy survives without changing it. It is clearly time for a change of sorts, and I understand people who wish that Trump would bring it.

I'm not prejudicially against a Trump administration myself: if he was reigned in and assisted by more knowledgeable and level-headed advisors and if he dropped his more extremist ideas he could actually carry on the Kerry efforts, or improve on them, and be a decent enough president.

However I don't think that Hillary Clinton is a complete moron. She's going to realize that the Syrian war hasn't gone as she expected, and she's going to back off a little and try to find some kind of deal with Russia. What worries me the most is that she might do something stupid to placate the Saudis, but I'm not thinking about a war with Russia, more likely new concessions to the Salafi "moderates" (like Sharia councils and tribunals in the US) and carrying on business as usual.

The absolute worst choice she could make would be to try to destabilize Iran. That would be downright suicidal in this precise historical moment, but it's more likely than a war with Russia. Hopefully she can see that she can't over-reach and it's time to at least slow down.

[feathers]

I just read a post that probably required a lot of vaseline to research. Over at The Orbit, a trans-woman has posted about sex after acquiring a vagina. Having lost a dick, but remaining attracted to real vagina people, the author found using a strap-on was the most sexually satisfying.

:twatson:

I think I need a link. For verification purposes.

[CommanderTuvok]

Here's Carrier's spaghetti sauce recipe:

Richard Carrier’s Sicilian Spaghetti Sauce
Ingredients
28 oz. diced tomatoes (canned or fresh)
1-3 (ideally 3 to cover all contingencies) small cans of tomato paste (for managing consistency)
1-3 (ideally 3 to cover all contingencies) small cans of tomato sauce (for managing consistency)
6 oz. can of medium pitted olives (drained and sliced)
8 oz. chopped mushrooms
1 tsp. of basil
1 tsp. of oregano
1 tsp. of onion powder
1 tsp. of pepper
1 tsp. of rosemary (crush before using)
1 tsp. of garlic powder
1 bay leaf (warning: do not eat this leaf!) (tip: you can use fresh herbs and fresh fried chopped onions at
greater cost and labor, but dried everything works well enough)
2 big glubs of Burgundy, Zinfandel, or Syrah
1 pound of hamburger
1 Italian sausage (mild or ‘sweet’, not hot) tip: buy package with multiple sausages, individually wrap and
store them in freezer (alternatively you can ask the butcher at any store to wrap you a single sausage)
Directions
1. Remove casing from sausage and break it up into a skillet.
2. Break up hamburger into same skillet.
3. Brown the meat together over moderate heat; break it all up well.
4. Meanwhile, fill a crock pot with all the other ingredients above.
5. Drain the meat and add meat to pot and stir. Mix all ingredients thoroughly. Adjust consistency. (if too wet,
add tomato paste; if too thick, add tomato sauce)
6. Cook for 1 to 8 hours (1-4 hours on high or 6-8 hours on low/medium).
7. If using a regular pot, must stir constantly. If using a crock pot, it can be left alone.
8. Taste and adjust flavor and consistency at about 3/4 the projected end time. (it may need salt, but probably
not, as the canned olives usually add enough)
9. Let cool, and sauce is ready to store or serve!
Serves 4

If he is so smart, then why didn't he realize its much easier to buy spaghetti sauce at the store ?[/quote]

When I think of Richard Carrier's sauce, a different visual image "came" to mind.

[HunnyBunny]

I just read a post that probably required a lot of vaseline to research. Over at The Orbit, a trans-woman has posted about sex after acquiring a vagina. Having lost a dick, but remaining attracted to real vagina people, the author found using a strap-on was the most sexually satisfying.

:twatson:

I think I need a link. For verification purposes.

Yeah right... but if you must. Keep the tissues handy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160822115 ... r-surgery/

After surgery, I’ve had a pretty active sex life. I have several regular partners of many non-male genders that I enjoy infrequent sex with in various different ways. I still don’t really like having my genitals touched most of the time, which many people find surprising. And I no longer enjoy penetration except in very rare circumstances. But I still give lots of head, and now I love strapping on.

[Kirbmarc]

Overall I think that both Trump and Clinton are going to face the same issues and that neither is as bad as the other side wants you to believe. Trump is a narcissistic agitator, a simplistic thinker and a troll but he would probably be forced to tone it down and wise up (or at least listen to reason) if he won. Clinton is a crooked schemer, an incredibly ambitious prima donna and wants you to vote because she has a vagina, but she will probably be forced to slow down and rethink her plans when she will (likely) win.

I don't think that either of them is Hitler or will make the US go to war with Russia. I think that right now Trump could be better if he toned down some of his more unrealistic plans, because unlike Hillary he has less ties with certain lobbies, but even Hillary isn't going to bring the apocalypse or the collapse of the US.

[deLurch]

Who wants to win a Gold when four years earlier a transwoman set the record 10 seconds faster?

I think plenty would. But their bigger question will be if it is even possible for a natural born woman to win.

As the standard for who can compete kicks in, the more competitive countries will begin to favor transtheletes over women. There won't be many strength & endurance competitions left where they won't get their asses kicked.

[KiwiInOz]

Who wants to win a Gold when four years earlier a transwoman set the record 10 seconds faster?

I think plenty would. But their bigger question will be if it is even possible for a natural born woman to win.

As the standard for who can compete kicks in, the more competitive countries will begin to favor transtheletes over women. There won't be many strength & endurance competitions left where they won't get their asses kicked.

I wonder if the Olympics will have Mens, Womens, and Inter/Trans events in the future?

If not, why not?

[MarcusAu]

I was thinking there could be separate categories for 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries. (Similar to weight classes in boxing).

Because, as was pointed out earlier - those countries (eg Britain) with more money to invest in their athletes - tend to win a greater number of medals.

Still, it's nice to see that with at least the woman's events, the concept of 'gentlemanly amateur' has potential to make a comeback.

[Shatterface]

Yeah right... but if you must. Keep the tissues handy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160822115 ... r-surgery/

After surgery, I’ve had a pretty active sex life. I have several regular partners of many non-male genders that I enjoy infrequent sex with in various different ways. I still don’t really like having my genitals touched most of the time, which many people find surprising. And I no longer enjoy penetration except in very rare circumstances. But I still give lots of head, and now I love strapping on.

I think there a difference between being a transwoman and some freak who only really wanted a detachable dick.

[Keating]

I was thinking there could be separate categories for 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries. (Similar to weight classes in boxing).

Because, as was pointed out earlier - those countries (eg Britain) with more money to invest in their athletes - tend to win a greater number of medals.

Still, it's nice to see that with at least the woman's events, the concept of 'gentlemanly amateur' has potential to make a comeback.

The more obvious solution is to do away with the medals, and just give everyone a participation ribbon. After all, they're all equally brave and amazing people.

[Old_ones]

If you'd actually like to know, I tracked down the article where he explains it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... del-works/

Its a couple years old, but he notes that they build their models in mostly the same way every year. The teal dear version is that they build models based on polling averages and a few "fundamentals" like the unemployment rate. Then they run a lot of simulations where random number generators are used to simulate systematic errors in national and state polling averages. The simulations give them a bell curve of simulated election outcomes, and they use that bell curve to calculate the probability of a given candidate winning.

Looks like the "unskewed" people are back and didn't learn their lesson from last time. I can't see why anybody here would vote for him considering he is a climate change denier and anti-vaccine crank as well as a bad businessman.

Apparently there are some people here who find Narcissistic Personality Disorder cute as long as the afflicted doesn't believe in social justice.

I don't get the appeal either. Hillary Clinton is flawed and unlikable but psychologically normal.

[Clarence]

Overall I think that both Trump and Clinton are going to face the same issues and that neither is as bad as the other side wants you to believe. Trump is a narcissistic agitator, a simplistic thinker and a troll but he would probably be forced to tone it down and wise up (or at least listen to reason) if he won. Clinton is a crooked schemer, an incredibly ambitious prima donna and wants you to vote because she has a vagina, but she will probably be forced to slow down and rethink her plans when she will (likely) win.

I don't think that either of them is Hitler or will make the US go to war with Russia. I think that right now Trump could be better if he toned down some of his more unrealistic plans, because unlike Hillary he has less ties with certain lobbies, but even Hillary isn't going to bring the apocalypse or the collapse of the US.

I do find it rather amusing that you think I'm more concerned over Hillary's foreign policy than her economic and social policies.

IF Trump wins, I suspect I'll be left alone, at least.
IF Hillary wins it will be a non-stop propaganda, regulatory, and legal assault on my individual rights, my sex, my race, and my eonomic position.

I'm largely agreeing with you on your foreign policy posts, but this election is not about foreign policy for me. Foreign policy is just one of the things that the Insiders do for whatever reason and don't leave up to plebes like myself, one of the things where you see the two parties (Repub , Democrat) are largely in agreement, and one of the things the Elite here focus on rather than making sure they have an civically educated and minded citizenry.

Whether or not Hillary Clinton starts a war with Russia, destabilizes the middle east or whatever, you can be she will continue to further destablize things here at home.

[Clarence]

If you'd actually like to know, I tracked down the article where he explains it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... del-works/

Its a couple years old, but he notes that they build their models in mostly the same way every year. The teal dear version is that they build models based on polling averages and a few "fundamentals" like the unemployment rate. Then they run a lot of simulations where random number generators are used to simulate systematic errors in national and state polling averages. The simulations give them a bell curve of simulated election outcomes, and they use that bell curve to calculate the probability of a given candidate winning.

Looks like the "unskewed" people are back and didn't learn their lesson from last time. I can't see why anybody here would vote for him considering he is a climate change denier and anti-vaccine crank as well as a bad businessman.

Apparently there are some people here who find Narcissistic Personality Disorder cute as long as the afflicted doesn't believe in social justice.

Did you type that while you were grooming yourself and looking in the mirror?

[Clarence]

I was thinking there could be separate categories for 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries. (Similar to weight classes in boxing).

Because, as was pointed out earlier - those countries (eg Britain) with more money to invest in their athletes - tend to win a greater number of medals.

Still, it's nice to see that with at least the woman's events, the concept of 'gentlemanly amateur' has potential to make a comeback.

Smartass


:rimshot: :clap: :naughty: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[feathers]

I wonder if the Olympics will have Mens, Womens, and Inter/Trans events in the future?

If not, why not?

Or, in categories of testosterone rates, measured at regular intervals and shortly before the match.

[feathers]

Yeah right... but if you must. Keep the tissues handy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160822115 ... r-surgery/

After surgery, I’ve had a pretty active sex life. I have several regular partners of many non-male genders that I enjoy infrequent sex with in various different ways. I still don’t really like having my genitals touched most of the time, which many people find surprising. And I no longer enjoy penetration except in very rare circumstances. But I still give lots of head, and now I love strapping on.

I think there a difference between being a transwoman and some freak who only really wanted a detachable dick.

Read it- s/he's gone through the entire expensive and dangerous operation only to conclude she doesn't want to be penetrated. Why Lord?

[Kirbmarc]

I do find it rather amusing that you think I'm more concerned over Hillary's foreign policy than her economic and social policies.

IF Trump wins, I suspect I'll be left alone, at least.
IF Hillary wins it will be a non-stop propaganda, regulatory, and legal assault on my individual rights, my sex, my race, and my eonomic position.

I'm largely agreeing with you on your foreign policy posts, but this election is not about foreign policy for me. Foreign policy is just one of the things that the Insiders do for whatever reason and don't leave up to plebes like myself, one of the things where you see the two parties (Repub , Democrat) are largely in agreement, and one of the things the Elite here focus on rather than making sure they have an civically educated and minded citizenry.

Whether or not Hillary Clinton starts a war with Russia, destabilizes the middle east or whatever, you can be she will continue to further destablize things here at home.

I'm not saying that you should be concerned about her foreign policy: I, however, am more interested in her approach to foreign policy because I don't live in the US. Sorry.

[Clarence]

I do find it rather amusing that you think I'm more concerned over Hillary's foreign policy than her economic and social policies.

IF Trump wins, I suspect I'll be left alone, at least.
IF Hillary wins it will be a non-stop propaganda, regulatory, and legal assault on my individual rights, my sex, my race, and my eonomic position.

I'm largely agreeing with you on your foreign policy posts, but this election is not about foreign policy for me. Foreign policy is just one of the things that the Insiders do for whatever reason and don't leave up to plebes like myself, one of the things where you see the two parties (Repub , Democrat) are largely in agreement, and one of the things the Elite here focus on rather than making sure they have an civically educated and minded citizenry.

Whether or not Hillary Clinton starts a war with Russia, destabilizes the middle east or whatever, you can be she will continue to further destablize things here at home.

I'm not saying that you should be concerned about her foreign policy: I, however, am more interested in her approach to foreign policy because I don't live in the US. Sorry.

Well, imagine it's 4 to 8 years from now (my timeline for the beginning of physical resistance to the current political regime) and a nuclear armed US is politically unstable such that its under martial law - what implications do this have for your foreign policy or the rest of the world?

If you would here's two further scenerios:
A. Within 20 to 50 years the US has broken apart into 3 or 4 seperate countries, each of which is, of course, nuclear armed. You can imagine the breakaway was peaceful, or via military coup, or via downright civil war.
B. Within 20 years a rightwing or leftwing authoritarian Leader is in actual charge of those nukes

What happens in those scenerios for the current 'world order'?

[Kirbmarc]

Apparently there are some people here who find Narcissistic Personality Disorder cute as long as the afflicted doesn't believe in social justice.

I don't get the appeal either. Hillary Clinton is flawed and unlikable but psychologically normal.

The main appeal of Trump is that he's proposing change. In a way his appeal is similar to that of Bernie Sanders: they're both anti-establishment, with few ties to the lobbies and special interests that have heavily influenced the previous elections and seem to propose a new approach to the economy and to various policies. They also seem less easily influenced by identity groups and special interests in general (Sanders because he's a socialist/independent, Trump because he's independently rich).

I think that Trump has said a lot of dumb and illiberal things (Steersman-esque ban on Muslims, the Wall saga), but I'm still not sure if he's even actually serious about anything he says and as I said his approach to foreign policy could be relatively better than Clinton's if he were able to make a pragmatic compromise from a position of strength with Russia and Iran and gradually disentangle from the alliance with Saudi Arabia.

I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do this, since he's pushing for a more isolationist policy and a restructuring of alliances, and even John Kerry and Obama were starting the first step towards this goal. On the other hand even if Clinton wanted to gradually tame the Saudis (and her actions has shown that she doesn't care and prefers to carry on as usual) she'd have her hands tied with her close relationships with that lobby.

The Saudi Arabia lobby hates Trump. He's the first candidate in ages that I've seen them hate, and this has made me curious. He also seems like likely to get the US involved in wars abroad, which could be a good thing. And since his ban on Muslims is unconstitutional (thankfully) he could instead focus his efforts to fight Muslim supremacy by keeping a closer eye on Salafi imams, which is a good policy, and maybe on revoking the easy visas from Saudi Arabia to the US, which could limit the actions of Salafi clerics.

Hillary doesn't seem to care so much about this issue.

[VickyCaramel]

I do find it rather amusing that you think I'm more concerned over Hillary's foreign policy than her economic and social policies.

IF Trump wins, I suspect I'll be left alone, at least.
IF Hillary wins it will be a non-stop propaganda, regulatory, and legal assault on my individual rights, my sex, my race, and my eonomic position.

I'm largely agreeing with you on your foreign policy posts, but this election is not about foreign policy for me. Foreign policy is just one of the things that the Insiders do for whatever reason and don't leave up to plebes like myself, one of the things where you see the two parties (Repub , Democrat) are largely in agreement, and one of the things the Elite here focus on rather than making sure they have an civically educated and minded citizenry.

Whether or not Hillary Clinton starts a war with Russia, destabilizes the middle east or whatever, you can be she will continue to further destablize things here at home.

I'm not saying that you should be concerned about her foreign policy: I, however, am more interested in her approach to foreign policy because I don't live in the US. Sorry.

Well, imagine it's 4 to 8 years from now (my timeline for the beginning of physical resistance to the current political regime) and a nuclear armed US is politically unstable such that its under martial law - what implications do this have for your foreign policy or the rest of the world?

If you would here's two further scenerios:
A. Within 20 to 50 years the US has broken apart into 3 or 4 seperate countries, each of which is, of course, nuclear armed. You can imagine the breakaway was peaceful, or via military coup, or via downright civil war.
B. Within 20 years a rightwing or leftwing authoritarian Leader is in actual charge of those nukes

What happens in those scenerios for the current 'world order'?

If the US loses the petrodollar, which is a licence to print money, we will be in much the same situation. There will be a worldwide recession, a power vacuum, but the world will keep on turning.

[Spike13]

On the bright side, i suspect that a Clinton presidency will do for the Democrats what the GW Bush Presidency did for the Republicans.

Not sure about that. The first Clinton presidency didn't have that effect.

[Kirbmarc]

Well, imagine it's 4 to 8 years from now (my timeline for the beginning of physical resistance to the current political regime) and a nuclear armed US is politically unstable such that its under martial law - what implications do this have for your foreign policy or the rest of the world?

Do you really think that things would be that bad after a Clinton administration?

If you would here's two further scenerios:
A. Within 20 to 50 years the US has broken apart into 3 or 4 seperate countries, each of which is, of course, nuclear armed. You can imagine the breakaway was peaceful, or via military coup, or via downright civil war.
B. Within 20 years a rightwing or leftwing authoritarian Leader is in actual charge of those nukes

What happens in those scenerios for the current 'world order'?

I don't think that either scenario is particularly likely, to be honest. The US have solid liberal democratic institutions. It would take something worse than four or eight years under Clinton to start such a process. Maybe a nuclear terroristic attack could trigger the second scenario, but right now I think they're both improbable.

What I think is more likely is that if the US don't change their policies, and if European countries keep doing little to fight Muslim supremacy (which I think is already starting to change) then far right-wing parties (like the Front Nationale in France) will get into power in Western Europe. They likely won't turn those countries into authoritarian dictatorships, but they could take steps that could trigger large-scale violence between right-wing gangs and the Muslim communities.

The worst possible scenario, however, isn't even what could happen to Europe. It's Pakistan. That's a country which has majority of Sunni Muslims, plenty of influential Salafi clerics, weak institutions and nuclear weapons. It's far more likely that they could collapse and turn into a new Islamic State with nukes than the US could fall apart or become a dictatorship.

[Clarence]

Well, imagine it's 4 to 8 years from now (my timeline for the beginning of physical resistance to the current political regime) and a nuclear armed US is politically unstable such that its under martial law - what implications do this have for your foreign policy or the rest of the world?

If you would here's two further scenerios:
A. Within 20 to 50 years the US has broken apart into 3 or 4 seperate countries, each of which is, of course, nuclear armed. You can imagine the breakaway was peaceful, or via military coup, or via downright civil war.
B. Within 20 years a rightwing or leftwing authoritarian Leader is in actual charge of those nukes

What happens in those scenerios for the current 'world order'?

If the US loses the petrodollar, which is a licence to print money, we will be in much the same situation. There will be a worldwide recession, a power vacuum, but the world will keep on turning.

I admit the petrodollar may be the key to most (not all) of US foreign policy. What's confused me about that in the past is that it implies the central bankers have more power than I think they have, but, more to the point, not every head-scratching foreign policy position over the past 20 years can be explained by it. It tries to explain everything, and it can't.

Still, I'm willing to concede it likely describes the limits of most US foreign policy.

Here's another thing though: due to the US's obscene concentration of wealth, the average person wouldn't be as hurt by going off the petrodollar was one might think. After all, precious little of the 'license to print money' seems to go to any social programs other than SS and medicaid, most of the money we 'borrow' goes to wars, and weapons systems, and political bribes. Hell, we can't even use the petrodollar to fix our ailing and aging infrastructure.

[Lsuoma]

On the bright side, i suspect that a Clinton presidency will do for the Democrats what the GW Bush Presidency did for the Republicans.

I am not happy with this new avatar. Please PM me selfies of your tits.

One of each?

[Lsuoma]

ACAB = All Coppers Are Bastards.

[Clarence]

Do you really think that things would be that bad after a Clinton administration?

Yes. 8 more years of largely ignoring the problems in America's inner cities (she might throw money that way or might not, but if any significant amount is thrown it will be to try policies that have already failed because the 'social sciences' are currently in the grips of idology), of mollifying Social Justice Warriors by allowing White Men or Men In General or Whites in general to blamed for all their ills, of ignoring the fact the colleges are becoming ill-liberal, anti-enlightenment, hell-holes, of allowing her feminist and Black Lives Matter (not sure if she really favors the feminists or will cynically favor whoever is more politically expedient at the moment) to infiltrate institutions and set regulatory and legal policies. 8 more years of ignoring our 50 percent divorce rate, declining marriage rates (or maybe she'll go for a bachelor tax, you KNOW she ain't giving those Fathers Rights groups any family law reforms), poverty in places like Appalachia (who cares about rednecks anyway?), graft in politics, electoral reform (so many Americans do NOT feel like the two parties represent them it ain't funny)to get $ out of our elections. 8 more years of Kangaroo courts in colleges based on sexual assault hysteria, 8 more years of waging war on the military via the destruction of any Due process for any member accused of sexual assault (as I extensively documented to com) -which, I hope, eventually will backfire on her, and I don't care if the 'backfire' is a literal bullet to her brain.
She'll get to try to appoint SCOTUS justices to allow things such as unequal applications of Title IX (and most of the "Title" legislation that the current President has twisted beyond all recognition). She'll get to try to get the Second Amendment right to bear arms overturned, or effectively defanged (it largely is in Domestic cases already, I refer to the fact that a single restraining order *no proof required, no penalties for perjury* can often cause you to lose that right) so that it becomes a "paper right" like the 10th. She'll probably go for female quotas on Boards of Director and other feminist friendly legislation. Look for extensions on the Violence Against Women act to either increase penalties for DV crimes or increase the things that may be considered crimes in and of themselves. Taxes will almost certainly go up on everyone but the very poor and the well-connected rich and companies (who will still have their loopholes). Meanwhile, mere millionaire and other successful smal business people will largely be regulated or taxed out of existence, though some new ones will be created due to 'minority setasides' that everyone except white males are eligible for. Look for a continuation of most of the Drug War, though she MIGHT not mess with the current MJ legalization push. Look for the cops hands to be increasingly tied when it comes to fighting crime in minority neighborhoods. Either that, or random whites to be stopped/frisked whatever to keep up a 'quota' so it doesn't look like discrimination. Look for her to use her sex as a weapon at the slightest criticism. And lastly, since her economic policies are more 'business as usual' I expect more pain for the middle class. This is not a sustainable OR popular domestic policy prescription, but it is the one that Hillary Clinton is almost guaranteed to produce. And people are sick of it, and people are literally getting physically and mentally destroyed by it. So yes, I fully expect Hillary Clinton's administration to be the beginning of the end of the current political order, and no, violence would not surprise me one bit. This bitch lives off division, she can die by division if there is any Karma in the universe.

I don't think that either scenario is particularly likely, to be honest. The US have solid liberal democratic institutions. It would take something worse than four or eight years under Clinton to start such a process. Maybe a nuclear terroristic attack could trigger the second scenario, but right now I think they're both improbable.

You can be forgiven this. You are not a US citizen. I tell you that most of these 'institutions' are corrupted or coopted and no longer function to protect the liberties of the people or the Constitution. That is why I say the US is currently post-Constitutional. A new order is needed; one that better cares for the needs of the people WILLING to LIVE (and let live) here. I'm 45. I was on the internet, following politics since 1995 or early 1996. For nearly 15 years before that (ever since ten or so) I was following US politics by reading political magazines like National Review, The Nation, and The New Republic. After all these years, I DO NOT recognize this country any more. By that I don't refer to the 'demographic' change. I refer to legal and policy changes which have turned out as bad (if not worse) than any nightmare a libertarian or Constitutionalist was writing about in 1996.

[Clarence]

You might note that most of that stuff doesn't require cooperation with Congress and the things I mentioned that do ( Trade Agreements, VAWA legislation) are almost guaranteed to get passed even if the Congress stays mostly Republican.

Presidents are rather powerful these days.

[Shatterface]

ACAB = All Coppers Are Bastards.

Not to be confused with ACABilk.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... r_Bilk.jpg

[d4m10n]

Anyone else sense a bit of a spat brewing between PZ Myers and David Smalley?

[Shatterface]

So this is where Aneris has got to:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... e-contest/

Wonder how SJWs will respond to a Pitter winning a prize on WEIT?

[Shatterface]

Anyone else sense a bit of a spat brewing between PZ Myers and David Smalley?

I think it's easier to accept that, sometimes, your friends can be wrong, if you are capable of friendship.

Myers doesn't have friends, he has allies. And fewer of those each day.

Even his gut bacteria regard him as a necessary evil.

[Sunder]

Smalley has invited PZ onto his podcast to discuss the issue. I'd be surprised if he goes because for one, it's not a controlled environment where he can shut David down, and for two, PZ knows his voice has no gravitas. Better to stick to type where he can substitute BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS IN A RED FONT for authority.

Not a big fan of Smalley or his show, but his article is mostly sensible.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Back, and alive. It was a very good weekend with lots of constructive activity...

[youtube][/youtube]

[Spike13]

ACAB = All Coppers Are Bastards.

I thought it was "All Criminals Anally Broken"

[Sunder]

Surprisingly Peez appears to have accepted Smalley's offer. This could be interesting.

[HunnyBunny]

Hey Heina, where's the fucking book? Enquiring minds on the CFI Board would like to know.

http://i.imgur.com/2Lh13M6.jpg

That's cis-white-men for you, always expecting people to deliver on the promises they made in exchange for other people's hard-earned money.

You obviously aren't reading your kickstarter page, seeing as you haven't posted there since March 2015, but we know you read outrage search here. Are you also searching the pages of http://kickscammed.com/ wondering when your 9.6k scam will pop up?

[Spike13]

Concerning the coming presidential election.

Just think these two are the best that either party could produce.

Out of all the candidates these two are the ones chosen.

The system is broken, the parties are intellectually and morally broken.

They have been for some time. Now it's becoming truly apparent how deep the rot has set in.

I think our only hope now is that whichever candidate wins, they pull a William Henry Harrison and drops dead as soon as possible.( natural causes of course, assassins are assholes)

Perhaps then we might get lucky and find another Teddy R. or a Truman.

[Spike13]

It should be,

The system is broken, the parties are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

A combination of posting on my phone and not properly proof reading.

[Tigzy]

The worst possible scenario, however, isn't even what could happen to Europe. It's Pakistan. That's a country which has majority of Sunni Muslims, plenty of influential Salafi clerics, weak institutions and nuclear weapons. It's far more likely that they could collapse and turn into a new Islamic State with nukes than the US could fall apart or become a dictatorship.

If it was getting that bad in Pakistan, I suspect India and China would likely go for broke and invade the place (given the simmering political caldera of Kashmir, which you can bet your arse will be the first thing on the agenda of an IS-style Pakistan) before any IS style administration gained much of of a foothold. Not that it's a great comfort, as I wouldn't rule out India and/or China delivering limited nuclear strikes in such a situation: Kashmir is less a bone and more a mammoth tusk of contention between these countries, particularly between India and Pakistan. They've warred over it before; they will most assuredly war over it again - and if that war involves an IS-style Pakistan, no side will see any room for negotiation.

[Tigzy]

Now this needs to be shared. :lol:

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Why you (morons, plural) argue or care about national %s for Clinton and Trump is beyond me. What matters are votes in the electoral college. Other than a brief period a few weeks ago when they were even, Nate Silver et al. has had the odds of a Clinton victory at a consistent 3:1 pretty much all summer.

What does 3:1 odds even mean in an election? How does one test that -- run the election multiple times?

Silver is a charlatan blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

Fuck off, frequentist scum.

What are the chances of me doing that?

[Billie from Ockham]

But hurling is pretty close to American-style lacrosse, at least as played by males, so now you're giving up one of your own examples. tee hee

But Lacrosse is played in America with body armor. Whereas hurling isn't.

I concede. For one thing, the injuries from hurling are orders of magnitude above those from lacrosse.

[Lsuoma]

Anyone got a link to the Sex Robot vid (you know, the one with the dryer vent hose arms). Don't want to google for it at work...

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Stardust is one of the worst pieces of shit I've ever seen.

You're dead to me.

[fuzzy]

Anyone got a link to the Sex Robot vid (you know, the one with the dryer vent hose arms). Don't want to google for it at work...

[youtube][/youtube]