There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

[free thoughtpolice]

Some of you guys appear to be confused so here is something that might help.

Just assume that when it comes to Trump that everyone is lying. This includes Trump. Let me repeat that. Everyone is lying.

Any truth being reported is entirely accidental. There. All sorted.

So, if everyone is lying, that means you're lying too. Which means everyone is telling the truth? :think:

[John D]

A couple of pages ago, I made a comment toward the more right-leaning members of the pit (esp. John D and Vicky), asking why they weren't overly concerned with Trump's financial links to Russia. It seems the House testimony from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) lays out these links in some detail. Here's a brief summary (warning: Daily Kos, feel free to ignore the comments):

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1 ... is-a-crook

Let me put my question again: as it seems increasingly likely that Trump is financed by Russian mobsters and/or the Russian state (the two are largely interchangeable), are you not a little concerned that this could render him susceptible to their influence? ESP. Vicky, how is it you get all moist and fishy over his business acumen, when he's simply a mark for the mob?

I am worried about Trump fleecing us. I am hopeful that enough people hate him and are watching him that anything too bold will be noticed by legitimate reporters and politicians (not the likes of Dailykos or Representative Schiff). Schiff is a lying little fucker and I yell "Suck my dick!" at the TV every time he comes on... haha.

I also think that it is very hard for Trump to keep too many secrets. There have been so many leaks of confidential info from Trump's staff that I hope any real shenanigans will get reported.

I am pretty sure Trump doesn't owe any favors to a bunch of Russians. He seems more than willing to screw anyone if he thinks it will give him a better deal. He may well have done some "banking" in Russia, but that would be expected from a land developer. He has moved money around in many countries. I haven't seen anything to looks too awfully fishy since his election. He did stuff in Russia and so he has some kind of connection to Putin I suppose. Hell... Putin IS Russia. He controls everything. If Trump just went to Russia to play golf it would be somehow associated with Putin... if you know what I mean. Putin is inevitable if you do ANYTHING in Russia. It is a totally corrupt country.

If Trump was really totally in bed with Putin would he approve the sale of rockets to Ukraine? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/jos ... 201b6947b7

Trump is a weird guy. He says odd things, but if you listen to him for a while you can understand his meaning and his plan. Everyone says Trump has never said anything negative about Trump. This is not true. People like Sam Harris harp on this story but they are wrong. I have heard interviews with Trump where he called Putin a "bad guy".... funny how you can't find these easily on the great Google (yeah... no bias there). But, Trump also tends to leave people like Putin some room for compliments. It is really different, but Trump does this to every world leader. Hell, the other day Trump implied he had a good relationship with Kim.... haha. This is just a Trump thing. I think it is how he works with everyone.

Overall I would prefer a president that is more moral than Trump. I never liked the guy. But, I am pleased with his performance as president so far. I am really surprised I am pleased... I didn't expect to be. I didn't vote for him.

So, you could show us evidence that Trump has criticized Putin, but... but... them libruls at Google have hidden it away where you can't find it.

Jesus, man. Listen to yourself. You're pathetic.

Fuck you dogen!
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -evil-per/

[dogen]

A couple of pages ago, I made a comment toward the more right-leaning members of the pit (esp. John D and Vicky), asking why they weren't overly concerned with Trump's financial links to Russia. It seems the House testimony from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) lays out these links in some detail. Here's a brief summary (warning: Daily Kos, feel free to ignore the comments):

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1 ... is-a-crook

Let me put my question again: as it seems increasingly likely that Trump is financed by Russian mobsters and/or the Russian state (the two are largely interchangeable), are you not a little concerned that this could render him susceptible to their influence? ESP. Vicky, how is it you get all moist and fishy over his business acumen, when he's simply a mark for the mob?

I am worried about Trump fleecing us. I am hopeful that enough people hate him and are watching him that anything too bold will be noticed by legitimate reporters and politicians (not the likes of Dailykos or Representative Schiff). Schiff is a lying little fucker and I yell "Suck my dick!" at the TV every time he comes on... haha.

I also think that it is very hard for Trump to keep too many secrets. There have been so many leaks of confidential info from Trump's staff that I hope any real shenanigans will get reported.

I am pretty sure Trump doesn't owe any favors to a bunch of Russians. He seems more than willing to screw anyone if he thinks it will give him a better deal. He may well have done some "banking" in Russia, but that would be expected from a land developer. He has moved money around in many countries. I haven't seen anything to looks too awfully fishy since his election. He did stuff in Russia and so he has some kind of connection to Putin I suppose. Hell... Putin IS Russia. He controls everything. If Trump just went to Russia to play golf it would be somehow associated with Putin... if you know what I mean. Putin is inevitable if you do ANYTHING in Russia. It is a totally corrupt country.

If Trump was really totally in bed with Putin would he approve the sale of rockets to Ukraine? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/jos ... 201b6947b7

Trump is a weird guy. He says odd things, but if you listen to him for a while you can understand his meaning and his plan. Everyone says Trump has never said anything negative about Trump. This is not true. People like Sam Harris harp on this story but they are wrong. I have heard interviews with Trump where he called Putin a "bad guy".... funny how you can't find these easily on the great Google (yeah... no bias there). But, Trump also tends to leave people like Putin some room for compliments. It is really different, but Trump does this to every world leader. Hell, the other day Trump implied he had a good relationship with Kim.... haha. This is just a Trump thing. I think it is how he works with everyone.

Overall I would prefer a president that is more moral than Trump. I never liked the guy. But, I am pleased with his performance as president so far. I am really surprised I am pleased... I didn't expect to be. I didn't vote for him.

So, you could show us evidence that Trump has criticized Putin, but... but... them libruls at Google have hidden it away where you can't find it.

Jesus, man. Listen to yourself. You're pathetic.

Fuck you dogen!
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -evil-per/

Now I've got your attention, are your Deep Web skills up to finding me an article where Trump calls Putin a "bad guy"?

[free thoughtpolice]

Now I've got your attention, are your Deep Web skills up to finding me an article where Trump calls Putin a "bad guy"?

Google has hidden it.

[Brive1987]

This is beyond fucked.

[John D]

You need to think about what Trump really means when he speaks. Everyone takes him out of context.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ ... sia-emails

[dogen]

You need to think about what Trump really means when he speaks. Everyone takes him out of context.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ ... sia-emails

Too true. Example:

"Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart"

...translates to

"I have congenital micropenis"

[Guest_d2e60302]

Now I've got your attention, are your Deep Web skills up to finding me an article where Trump calls Putin a "bad guy"?

fwiw, it's very easy to find Trump describing Russia as a huge problem, as a foe, agreeing with Mitt Romney. In those comments he praises Putin as smart, but many of his statements are somewhat akin to the coach of the Patriots praising the head of the Falcons.

I'd think if he really were on Putin's payroll, it would be much easier to find Trump explicitly calling Putin out by name. (Of course, it could be on his 1099s and he won't release his taxes).

[John D]

Goddammit! I am being quite sincere here. I am searching and searching for the particular interview I heard. It was just after the election... something like November or December.

The interviewer was a woman and said something about Trump being a fan of Putin... and Trump said that he admired Putin for being an effective leader but that he was a bad guy... not a nice guy... but effective at running Russia. I remember thinking that Trump had a complex view of things that didn't translate well in the media.

I will keep looking. Really... it is like the whole interview is shit-holed. I am not crazy.

[Keating]

Some of you guys appear to be confused so here is something that might help.

Just assume that when it comes to Trump that everyone is lying. This includes Trump. Let me repeat that. Everyone is lying.

Any truth being reported is entirely accidental. There. All sorted.

So, if everyone is lying, that means you're lying too. Which means everyone is telling the truth? :think:

This sentence is false.

[TheMudbrooker]

Goddammit! I am being quite sincere here. I am searching and searching for the particular interview I heard. It was just after the election... something like November or December.

The interviewer was a woman and said something about Trump being a fan of Putin... and Trump said that he admired Putin for being an effective leader but that he was a bad guy... not a nice guy... but effective at running Russia. I remember thinking that Trump had a complex view of things that didn't translate well in the media.

I will keep looking. Really... it is like the whole interview is shit-holed. I am not crazy.

That does sound familiar, but maybe it's just the Mandela Effect.

[John D]

Goddammit! I am being quite sincere here. I am searching and searching for the particular interview I heard. It was just after the election... something like November or December.

The interviewer was a woman and said something about Trump being a fan of Putin... and Trump said that he admired Putin for being an effective leader but that he was a bad guy... not a nice guy... but effective at running Russia. I remember thinking that Trump had a complex view of things that didn't translate well in the media.

I will keep looking. Really... it is like the whole interview is shit-holed. I am not crazy.

That does sound familiar, but maybe it's just the Mandela Effect.

Haha. I don't think I will find this interview. Fuck. I don't know how much time I have to find it. Whatever. I get to think what I think. If course, I could be wrong about many things, but I have pretty good confidence on this one.

[Keating]

It'd be much better if the US had a leader that threatened to shirtfront Putin. That's for sure.

[free thoughtpolice]

Goddammit! I am being quite sincere here. I am searching and searching for the particular interview I heard. It was just after the election... something like November or December.

The interviewer was a woman and said something about Trump being a fan of Putin... and Trump said that he admired Putin for being an effective leader but that he was a bad guy... not a nice guy... but effective at running Russia. I remember thinking that Trump had a complex view of things that didn't translate well in the media.

I will keep looking. Really... it is like the whole interview is shit-holed. I am not crazy.

It was shit holed. You just pulled it out of your ass :dance: :dance:

[Really?]

Some of you guys appear to be confused so here is something that might help.

Just assume that when it comes to Trump that everyone is lying. This includes Trump. Let me repeat that. Everyone is lying.

Any truth being reported is entirely accidental. There. All sorted.

Thank you. This is my primary position. It is hard to trust a Washington Post owned by Amazon owned by a 600 million dollar CIA contract reporting on an FBI that took out insurance policies if their chosen candidate lost.

And Trump is a fabulist and a liar.

[Guest_935516df]

http://i.imgur.com/Oubrm8j.jpg
WTF
The mystery just deepened. Was it all an effort to get into SA? Is she back?

Perhaps Faith Goldy does not have the internal drive, motivation & skills necessary to go out and do independent reporting on her own. Lauren Southern can do it. Goldy cannot. Without a supporting organization to provide Goldy with a framework and structure, she just cannot do it. At best she can be an occasional internet personality without assistance.
-Soylent

[Really?]

Now I've got your attention, are your Deep Web skills up to finding me an article where Trump calls Putin a "bad guy"?

fwiw, it's very easy to find Trump describing Russia as a huge problem, as a foe, agreeing with Mitt Romney. In those comments he praises Putin as smart, but many of his statements are somewhat akin to the coach of the Patriots praising the head of the Falcons.

I'd think if he really were on Putin's payroll, it would be much easier to find Trump explicitly calling Putin out by name. (Of course, it could be on his 1099s and he won't release his taxes).

The Democrats, including Obama, mocked Romney for thinking Russia was a problem.

Now the Democrats want us to think Russia brainwashed Americans out of voting for a shitty candidate who was almost lost to a candidate they thought was equally shitty.

Maybe the Democrats are just upset their insurance policy didn't work for the candidate they ensured wasn't charged with federal crimes.

[MacGruberKnows]

Looking back, the wierdest thing about the Trump shithole fiasco was the Fox website report on it had thousands of comments and the Fox Trump supporters weren't calling it fake news. They loved that he called all of those countries shitholes. They wanted it to be true even if Trump
was saying it was a lie.

BTW, China is getting heavily invested in those African shithole nations, and Trump has made it a lot easier for China to achieve it's
strategic interests in those countries. None of which is of any benefit to US interests. If a leading Chinese official had made these comments about Africa he would have been taken out and shot as a traitor. For strategic reasons.

[free thoughtpolice]

Their insurance policy?

[dogen]

Their insurance policy?

Clearly underwritten by Deep State Farm...

[VickyCaramel]

A couple of pages ago, I made a comment toward the more right-leaning members of the pit (esp. John D and Vicky), asking why they weren't overly concerned with Trump's financial links to Russia. It seems the House testimony from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) lays out these links in some detail. Here's a brief summary (warning: Daily Kos, feel free to ignore the comments):

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1 ... is-a-crook

Let me put my question again: as it seems increasingly likely that Trump is financed by Russian mobsters and/or the Russian state (the two are largely interchangeable), are you not a little concerned that this could render him susceptible to their influence? ESP. Vicky, how is it you get all moist and fishy over his business acumen, when he's simply a mark for the mob?

It's almost 5am and I am only up this late because Witcher III had a particularly interesting storyline... far more interesting than the political intrigue going on over there in the colonies. Honestly, I don't pay that much attention, I don't think it's worth it at this stage because there is OBVIOUSLY so much bullshit flying around. I only know what I know because some of the people I have been following have talked about it, and while the MSM has largely claimed that there is a "Russia conspiracy", it is also painfully obvious that a lot of the evidence was made up, people were paid to smear Trump including a British former MI6 officer, The DNC had funded this, and on top of all this... while on the one hand I am now hearing that there is conclusive evidence that he conspired with the Russians and that it will come out any day now (they have been saying that for a year), I am also hearing that there is good reason to believe that the FBI and the rest of the alphabet soup has conspired to nobble Trump and the whole Russia thing was a fabricated excuse to spy on him.

So I am waiting for some actual conclusive evidence one way or the other, not that I particularly have a dog in the fight. If it turns out that Trump was being pissed on by Russian hookers while sucking off Putin, I'd still think he is less corrupt and damaging to the US than Hillary.

And on the subject of doing business with with gangster. In the 23 years I was working, I had many wealthy clients, from Richard Branson to Mohamed al Fayed, From Peter Crouch to Jimmy Greaves, from The Prodigy to Suzi Quatro... rockstars, sports personalities, entrepreneurs, old money... and even gangsters. I am reliably informed that one of my clients personally carried out one of the UK's most notorious gangland executions, and several of my clients were young Russians with inexplicably large amounts of money. So if you accused me of having ties to Russian gangsters I would have to admit to it. Does this make me a "mark for the mob?". Considering the amount of business I did in the the middle east, I probably have links to terrorism too. So excuse me if I don't get too excited about this.

[dogen]

A couple of pages ago, I made a comment toward the more right-leaning members of the pit (esp. John D and Vicky), asking why they weren't overly concerned with Trump's financial links to Russia. It seems the House testimony from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) lays out these links in some detail. Here's a brief summary (warning: Daily Kos, feel free to ignore the comments):

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1 ... is-a-crook

Let me put my question again: as it seems increasingly likely that Trump is financed by Russian mobsters and/or the Russian state (the two are largely interchangeable), are you not a little concerned that this could render him susceptible to their influence? ESP. Vicky, how is it you get all moist and fishy over his business acumen, when he's simply a mark for the mob?

It's almost 5am and I am only up this late because Witcher III had a particularly interesting storyline... far more interesting than the political intrigue going on over there in the colonies. Honestly, I don't pay that much attention

...and that's where I stopped reading. You're clearly too uninformed to have a worthwhile discussion with.

Enjoy Witcher III, it's a really great game!

[Matt Cavanaugh]

You need to think about what Trump really means when he speaks. Everyone takes him out of context.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ ... sia-emails

Too true. Example:

"Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart"

...translates to

"I have congenital micropenis"

“When you’re really smart, when you’re really, really smart like I am — it’s true, it’s true, it’s always been true, it’s always been true.”

=

'My sadistic daddy called me stupid my entire life growing up.'

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

So, about that dedicated thread for Trump and Clinton...

[SM1957]

It's amazing that Trump allows journalists to report on him the way they do.

Why doesn't he do what Obama did and jail them?

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-ri ... 014-8?IR=T

[feathers]

Peterson is no beta.

Il est une bête.

[Guest_d2e60302]

There's a new trailer for Heathers



The SJWs at avclub seem to agree that making the heathers a bunch of fat gay queers is a bad idea.

https://www.avclub.com/paramount-networ ... 1822212691

Paramount Network's Heathers makes its damage known in baffling new trailer

Teenage life has changed significantly since 1988, the year that the pitch-black teen comedy Heathers debuted in theaters. The nerds that once lived in fear of getting wedgies now have Hollywood studios eagerly catering to their every consumer whim, and the jocks who used to terrorize them no longer have the power to dictate every facet of their peers’ lives. Fat-shaming and bullying are on their way out, and it’s (relatively) safer for LGBTQ kids to live openly than ever before.k

That seems to be the thought process behind Paramount Network’s TV reboot of Heathers, which flips the original’s formula by having the vicious clique of Heathers making their classmates’ lives hell consist of plus-sized fashionista Heather Chandler (Melanie Field), genderqueer Heather Duke (Brendan Scannell), and Heather McNamara (Jasmine Mathews), a black student who’s the least of these three evils. Add a sprinkling of on-trend slang liberally lifted from gay culture, and you’re all set. Right?

Except the show doesn’t seem to have thought the rest of it through. The end result, where conventionally pretty Veronica Sawyer (Grace Victoria Cox) and her bad-boy boyfriend JD Dean (James Scully) systematically pick off the “unconventional” popular kids one by one, ends up playing more like a conservative fantasy of restoring the white, slim, and heterosexual to their proper place atop the teenage hierarchy than any sort of trenchant commentary on 21st-century teen culture. We’re going to give the creators the benefit of the doubt in saying this was probably not their intention with the series, but regardless, it betrays a serious lack of self-awareness in the writing process. In other words—seriously, Heathers, what is your damage?

Heathers debuts on Paramount Network on March 7, at which point we’ll find out if this series is as ill-considered as it seems.

[Brive1987]

[IMG]htt.p://i.imgur.com/Oubrm8j.jpg[/IMG]
WTF
The mystery just deepened. Was it all an effort to get into SA? Is she back?

Perhaps Faith Goldy does not have the internal drive, motivation & skills necessary to go out and do independent reporting on her own. Lauren Southern can do it. Goldy cannot. Without a supporting organization to provide Goldy with a framework and structure, she just cannot do it. At best she can be an occasional internet personality without assistance.
-Soylent

“Outside interference” and “nationalist tourism” - it sounds like Lauren Southern stole a march via an alpine style, low overhead assault.

The waves Southern may have caused and Goldy’s premature trailer release could well have compromised the environment.

But I agree, Goldy still has trainer wheels on.

[rayshul]

I like the idea of Heathers being psycho SJWs because really they're the ones who are fucking nut jobs these days.

[feathers]

The interviewer was a woman and said something about Trump being a fan of Putin... and Trump said that he admired Putin for being an effective leader but that he was a bad guy... not a nice guy... but effective at running Russia. I remember thinking that Trump had a complex view of things that didn't translate well in the media.

Concluding that Putin is a cunning leader, yet still a creep, is "a complex view of things"?

[feathers]

And on the subject of doing business with with gangster. In the 23 years I was working, I had many wealthy clients, from Richard Branson to Mohamed al Fayed, From Peter Crouch to Jimmy Greaves, from The Prodigy to Suzi Quatro... rockstars, sports personalities, entrepreneurs, old money... and even gangsters. I am reliably informed that one of my clients personally carried out one of the UK's most notorious gangland executions, and several of my clients were young Russians with inexplicably large amounts of money. So if you accused me of having ties to Russian gangsters I would have to admit to it. Does this make me a "mark for the mob?".

Once you become president of the most powerful nation in the world, yes, it bloody well does.

[Kirbmarc]

The interviewer was a woman and said something about Trump being a fan of Putin... and Trump said that he admired Putin for being an effective leader but that he was a bad guy... not a nice guy... but effective at running Russia. I remember thinking that Trump had a complex view of things that didn't translate well in the media.

Concluding that Putin is a cunning leader, yet still a creep, is "a complex view of things"?

A complex view of things on Putin requires a thorough understanding Russian history, economy and society, which I think is beyond what should be expected of most politicians. There are Secretaries of State, intelligence agencies, analysts and others whose job is to figure out what's going on in Russia, a president doesn't need to micro-manage everything.

One of problems with Trump is that he's actually too ready to speak his mind about things he knows little about, like when he blabbed on twitter about Qatar being the "only bad guys" in the Gulf, just after Tillerson had tried to approach the Qatar/KSA split from a more nuanced perspective (I'm not a fan of Tillerson, but at least he seemed to realize that things were a bit more complex than what the KSA propaganda was feeding to Trump).

Incidentally Putin isn't the masterful cunning genius that some think he is, many of his successes in foreign policy are more due to the fact that the US are tangled within a net of shifting alliances, many of which are no longer as beneficial to US interests as they were, than to any superlative feat of 4-D chess.

Putin is actually carrying on the same foreign policy of most Russian leaders throughout the 19th and 20th century (protecting key Russian access to the Black Sea, reinforcing ties with Slavic/Orthodox countries against Germanic/Protestant "Westerners") along with some support to key Russian allies when it's mutually beneficial (Iran, Syria, etc.).

He's made some serious mistakes, for example he likely over-stretched Russian economy with his intervention in Syria, plus he likely botched many deals with European nations which were more than willing to buy his oil and gas, due of needlessly (from a geopolitical perspective) feeding pro-Russian ethnic nationalism in the Baltic nations (in order to keep the ethno-nationalist Russians happy).

He's no genius, it's the 'Muricans who sometimes (Iraq invasion, Libya, Syria) have been completely clueless/acted against their own interests and more in the interests of some special interests and lobbies and in other cases (Ukraine, Georgia) have simply played their cards in a way that didn't expect Russian action.

[Kirbmarc]

Overall the stupidest thing that happened in the last 25 years was the 2003 Iraq invasion. I'm still trying to understand what the hell were George W. Bush and the neocons thinking. Even the Saudis, as corrupt, dogmatic and sometimes plainly idiotic as they are, understood that the invasion was going to be a complete disaster.

Everyone and their dog who knew anything about the Middle East warned Bush and Blair to take a step back and consider what was going to happen. The invasion was based on blatant lies which were quickly and timely exposed (Yellowcake forgery, Al-Qaeda/Iraq connection, spurious claims of WMDs). It was a blatantly illegal act according to international law.

The neocons are complete idiots at best, downright criminal at worst, seeing so many of them (Max Boot, David Frum, John Podhoretz, Bill Kristol) trying to become part of the "resistance" to Trump doesn't bode well for the US.

Trump is a disaster, but the neocons shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, not after they botched so much of the US foreign policy. I really hope that any Democrat who is going to defeat Trump won't listen to them anymore.

[Keating]

Overall the stupidest thing that happened in the last 25 years was the 2003 Iraq invasion. I'm still trying to understand what the hell were George W. Bush and the neocons thinking. Even the Saudis, as corrupt, dogmatic and sometimes plainly idiotic as they are, understood that the invasion was going to be a complete disaster.

Seems to me the underlying fundamental neoconservative idea is also the blank slate. If every human is solely a product of nurture, then it is morally justified to 'rescue' any human living in tyranny and imposing an environment of freedom and democracy.

[Kirbmarc]

Overall the stupidest thing that happened in the last 25 years was the 2003 Iraq invasion. I'm still trying to understand what the hell were George W. Bush and the neocons thinking. Even the Saudis, as corrupt, dogmatic and sometimes plainly idiotic as they are, understood that the invasion was going to be a complete disaster.

Seems to me the underlying fundamental neoconservative idea is also the blank slate. If every human is solely a product of nurture, then it is morally justified to 'rescue' any human living in tyranny and imposing an environment of freedom and democracy.

If that's true this just shows how ignorant they are of the history, religion, social issues, even geography of the Middle East. Even if every human is solely a product of nurture (which I don't believe, by the way, but I think is irrelevant to the discussion) surely anyone who knows just a little bit about the Middle East can understand that the "nurturing" is done in schools and societies where islamic religious traditions are the core message, and even MORE SO after Saudi-sponsored Salafi or Iran-sponsored Shia clerics move in.

What the hell were they expecting to happen, that just after killing Saddam Sunni, Shia and Kurds were going to create a peaceful confederation which was magically able to deal with centuries of inter-ethnic, inter-religious conflicts, not to mention build the social, legal and institutional infrastructure that it took centuries for Western democracies to implement, and to do it out of scratch, in a country devastated by the war?

[Kirbmarc]

If the neocons really thought that all the issues with Iraq started and ended with Saddam Hussein they were as delusional as the SocJus fans who believe that biological sex doesn't exist.

[feathers]

The neocons are complete idiots at best, downright criminal at worst, seeing so many of them (Max Boot, David Frum, John Podhoretz, Bill Kristol) trying to become part of the "resistance" to Trump doesn't bode well for the US.

The designation 'nazi' is thrown around a bit too liberally imo, but the neocons are as close to fascism as you can be without actually wearing black-shirted uniforms.

[feathers]

Seems to me the underlying fundamental neoconservative idea is also the blank slate.

The underlying fundamental idea to neoconservatism is a profound disdain for any human life or respect for humane values outside your own nation/political clique.

Warmongering, abduction, illegal detainment, torture, you name it, it's in their lexicon.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Looking back, the wierdest thing about the Trump shithole fiasco was the Fox website report on it had thousands of comments and the Fox Trump supporters weren't calling it fake news. They loved that he called all of those countries shitholes. They wanted it to be true even if Trump
was saying it was a lie.

BTW, China is getting heavily invested in those African shithole nations, and Trump has made it a lot easier for China to achieve it's
strategic interests in those countries. None of which is of any benefit to US interests. If a leading Chinese official had made these comments about Africa he would have been taken out and shot as a traitor. For strategic reasons.

Exactly. Trump apologists like to excuse him by pretending that he's changed all the rules of game with his mavericky style. Nothing he does is to be judged by normal standards. Only the rules of international politics haven't changed. The Chinese still play a long game and have a very long memory. They, and probably most other nations, are not going to be taken in for a second by Trump's 4d chess uber deal making skills. His shit-stirring plays to his fans and no-one else.

[VickyCaramel]

A couple of pages ago, I made a comment toward the more right-leaning members of the pit (esp. John D and Vicky), asking why they weren't overly concerned with Trump's financial links to Russia. It seems the House testimony from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) lays out these links in some detail. Here's a brief summary (warning: Daily Kos, feel free to ignore the comments):

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1 ... is-a-crook

Let me put my question again: as it seems increasingly likely that Trump is financed by Russian mobsters and/or the Russian state (the two are largely interchangeable), are you not a little concerned that this could render him susceptible to their influence? ESP. Vicky, how is it you get all moist and fishy over his business acumen, when he's simply a mark for the mob?

It's almost 5am and I am only up this late because Witcher III had a particularly interesting storyline... far more interesting than the political intrigue going on over there in the colonies. Honestly, I don't pay that much attention

...and that's where I stopped reading. You're clearly too uninformed to have a worthwhile discussion with.

Enjoy Witcher III, it's a really great game!

Everyone is too misinformed to have a worthwhile discussion with. This is simply not a worthwhile discussion until there is some actual evidence.

[VickyCaramel]

And on the subject of doing business with with gangster. In the 23 years I was working, I had many wealthy clients, from Richard Branson to Mohamed al Fayed, From Peter Crouch to Jimmy Greaves, from The Prodigy to Suzi Quatro... rockstars, sports personalities, entrepreneurs, old money... and even gangsters. I am reliably informed that one of my clients personally carried out one of the UK's most notorious gangland executions, and several of my clients were young Russians with inexplicably large amounts of money. So if you accused me of having ties to Russian gangsters I would have to admit to it. Does this make me a "mark for the mob?".

Once you become president of the most powerful nation in the world, yes, it bloody well does.

...but only if you are a Republican. Dems can be cosy with child molesters and the Klu Klux Klan and that's all dandy.

[Kirbmarc]

Looking back, the wierdest thing about the Trump shithole fiasco was the Fox website report on it had thousands of comments and the Fox Trump supporters weren't calling it fake news. They loved that he called all of those countries shitholes. They wanted it to be true even if Trump
was saying it was a lie.

BTW, China is getting heavily invested in those African shithole nations, and Trump has made it a lot easier for China to achieve it's
strategic interests in those countries. None of which is of any benefit to US interests. If a leading Chinese official had made these comments about Africa he would have been taken out and shot as a traitor. For strategic reasons.

Exactly. Trump apologists like to excuse him by pretending that he's changed all the rules of game with his mavericky style. Nothing he does is to be judged by normal standards. Only the rules of international politics haven't changed. The Chinese still play a long game and have a very long memory. They, and probably most other nations, are not going to be taken in for a second by Trump's 4d chess uber deal making skills. His shit-stirring plays to his fans and no-one else.

Hell, beyond some outbursts on Twitter and elsewhere he hasn't actually changed the foreign policy of the US that much, especially not when one considers the previous Republican administrators. He's carrying on many neocon ideas, like heavily supporting the KSA against Iran, or painting Iran as the only big troublemakers in the Middle East, or saber-rattling about North Korea.

His economical ideas are kind of similar. One thing that Clinton got 100% right was calling Trump's fiscal policy "Trumped-up Trickle Down" (she should have stuck to calling out Trump's bad ideas instead of blabbing about "deplorable voters", but that's another story). There's a reason why the GOP is going along with Trump, he's allowing them to do as they please as long as they let him pander to his anti-immigration base.

Basically all of Trump's "maverick skills" boil down to saying things his fan base likes with a language they like. It's little more than identity politics. Trump is a political troll, he's good at coming up with easy slogans and memes ("shithole countries" "Crooked Hillary" "fake news") but in practice he's not delivering any of the reforms which he sometimes promised to attract working-class white voters, and he's only pandering to the ideas of the people who don't want immigrants while the GOP is cutting down their healthcare and writing tax codes to benefit their corporate donors.

Trump is the richer, right-wing/alt-right friendly version of Anita Sarkeesian: a con man who believes in his own brilliance and in some vague ideas about identity politics, but knows how to say the right things that please his fans while he never delivers what he promised, or only delivers a half-assed version version, while constantly changing his story and playing the victim if necessary.

[Keating]

Seems to me the underlying fundamental neoconservative idea is also the blank slate.

The underlying fundamental idea to neoconservatism is a profound disdain for any human life or respect for humane values outside your own nation/political clique.

Warmongering, abduction, illegal detainment, torture, you name it, it's in their lexicon.

No it isn't. I don't agree with it, but it isn't completely insane. It is the idea that those with power should use it to help those without. In terms of Iraq, this meant that the US was not just morally justified, but compelled to use the might of the US military to bring freedom to all. Yes, there was a lot of corruption and other problems that went along with it - largely because, I think, military use only works by dehumanising the other side, which is counter to the purpose of the idea of bringing freedom to those without power. It is, in many ways, not that dissimilar to SocJus.

[MarcusAu]

So, about that dedicated thread for Trump and Clinton...

It's full up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwvHt7Cdswk

[Kirbmarc]

Seems to me the underlying fundamental neoconservative idea is also the blank slate.

The underlying fundamental idea to neoconservatism is a profound disdain for any human life or respect for humane values outside your own nation/political clique.

Warmongering, abduction, illegal detainment, torture, you name it, it's in their lexicon.

No it isn't. I don't agree with it, but it isn't completely insane. It is the idea that those with power should use it to help those without. In terms of Iraq, this meant that the US was not just morally justified, but compelled to use the might of the US military to bring freedom to all. Yes, there was a lot of corruption and other problems that went along with it - largely because, I think, military use only works by dehumanising the other side, which is counter to the purpose of the idea of bringing freedom to those without power. It is, in many ways, not that dissimilar to SocJus.

The thing neocons and SocJus fans have in common is the idea that one is justified to use violence or the power of the state to force people into a set of ideas (not simply to make people respect legal agreements). It's the idea of the Ethical State, where institutions aren't just ways to ensure social peace and integration through laws, but a source of personal ethic values, to be imposed if necessary.

It's one thing to argue for the respect of laws and common human rights, another to argue that anyone who has racist thoughts or lives in a country which isn't aligned with US ideals need to be forced to change their minds, through violence and intimidation if necessary.

It's not a matter of values, per se, it's a matter of methods. You can despise racist alt-righters but still think that they just shouldn't be jailed for their ideas, or promote democracy and human rights but think that invasions and wars aren't going to turn an authoritarian country into a democratic one.

Interestingly there are some who have switched sides from neocon to Woke (like Max Boot).

[VickyCaramel]

Seems to me the underlying fundamental neoconservative idea is also the blank slate.

The underlying fundamental idea to neoconservatism is a profound disdain for any human life or respect for humane values outside your own nation/political clique.

Warmongering, abduction, illegal detainment, torture, you name it, it's in their lexicon.

No it isn't. I don't agree with it, but it isn't completely insane. It is the idea that those with power should use it to help those without. In terms of Iraq, this meant that the US was not just morally justified, but compelled to use the might of the US military to bring freedom to all. Yes, there was a lot of corruption and other problems that went along with it - largely because, I think, military use only works by dehumanising the other side, which is counter to the purpose of the idea of bringing freedom to those without power. It is, in many ways, not that dissimilar to SocJus.

I really doubt that "Iraqi Freedom" was the primary motive for invading Iraq no matter how morally justified it was.
I think to most of us it looked a lot like they were liberating the oil.

[MarcusAu]

I like the idea of Heathers being psycho SJWs because really they're the ones who are fucking nut jobs these days.

Perhaps the themes could fit better in a remake of 'Massacre at Central High'.

Which Wiki tells me was an influence on 'Heathers'

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

[deLurch]

There's a new trailer for Heathers



The SJWs at avclub seem to agree that making the heathers a bunch of fat gay queers is a bad idea.

https://www.avclub.com/paramount-networ ... 1822212691

Paramount Network's Heathers makes its damage known in baffling new trailer

Teenage life has changed significantly since 1988, the year that the pitch-black teen comedy Heathers debuted in theaters. The nerds that once lived in fear of getting wedgies now have Hollywood studios eagerly catering to their every consumer whim, and the jocks who used to terrorize them no longer have the power to dictate every facet of their peers’ lives. Fat-shaming and bullying are on their way out, and it’s (relatively) safer for LGBTQ kids to live openly than ever before.k

That seems to be the thought process behind Paramount Network’s TV reboot of Heathers, which flips the original’s formula by having the vicious clique of Heathers making their classmates’ lives hell consist of plus-sized fashionista Heather Chandler (Melanie Field), genderqueer Heather Duke (Brendan Scannell), and Heather McNamara (Jasmine Mathews), a black student who’s the least of these three evils. Add a sprinkling of on-trend slang liberally lifted from gay culture, and you’re all set. Right?

Except the show doesn’t seem to have thought the rest of it through. The end result, where conventionally pretty Veronica Sawyer (Grace Victoria Cox) and her bad-boy boyfriend JD Dean (James Scully) systematically pick off the “unconventional” popular kids one by one, ends up playing more like a conservative fantasy of restoring the white, slim, and heterosexual to their proper place atop the teenage hierarchy than any sort of trenchant commentary on 21st-century teen culture. We’re going to give the creators the benefit of the doubt in saying this was probably not their intention with the series, but regardless, it betrays a serious lack of self-awareness in the writing process. In other words—seriously, Heathers, what is your damage?

Heathers debuts on Paramount Network on March 7, at which point we’ll find out if this series is as ill-considered as it seems.

Hilarious. It may be too culturally correct for the current day & age for the SJWs to be able to handle it. I wonder if the show is any good.

Of course for a TV show, if there are only 4 Heathers, once they off them all, they have played out the movie plot and need to look at more growth or more targets.

[paddybrown]

Seems to me the underlying fundamental neoconservative idea is also the blank slate.

The underlying fundamental idea to neoconservatism is a profound disdain for any human life or respect for humane values outside your own nation/political clique.

Warmongering, abduction, illegal detainment, torture, you name it, it's in their lexicon.

No it isn't. I don't agree with it, but it isn't completely insane. It is the idea that those with power should use it to help those without. In terms of Iraq, this meant that the US was not just morally justified, but compelled to use the might of the US military to bring freedom to all. Yes, there was a lot of corruption and other problems that went along with it - largely because, I think, military use only works by dehumanising the other side, which is counter to the purpose of the idea of bringing freedom to those without power. It is, in many ways, not that dissimilar to SocJus.

I really doubt that "Iraqi Freedom" was the primary motive for invading Iraq no matter how morally justified it was.
I think to most of us it looked a lot like they were liberating the oil.

I reckon if it was the oil they were after, they probably would have planned it better. The best explanation I can come up with is that it was mostly about rewarding his corporate backers with no-bid reconstruction contracts.

[Shatterface]

I like the idea of Heathers being psycho SJWs because really they're the ones who are fucking nut jobs these days.

Perhaps the themes could fit better in a remake of 'Massacre at Central High'.

Which Wiki tells me was an influence on 'Heathers'

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

Heathers are whoever hold the power in school so this could work. In the Eighties it was rich white bitches, now its feminists, fat trannies, and black students failing their exams because slavery and cops shot their dealer.

The original mocked the whole hippie therapeutic safe space culture that has come to dominate university life in the 21st century.

I don't advocate a real life Columbine solution to bullying but I'd certainly stock up on popcorn to watch a modern day Christian Slater-type go Travis Bickle on a bunch of entitled cry-bullies.

[feathers]

I really doubt that "Iraqi Freedom" was the primary motive for invading Iraq no matter how morally justified it was.
I think to most of us it looked a lot like they were liberating the oil.

I reckon if it was the oil they were after, they probably would have planned it better. The best explanation I can come up with is that it was mostly about rewarding his corporate backers with no-bid reconstruction contracts.

There's also some speculation that George W. had a personal mission to complete his dad's job. Although that would not have been the prime motivation, it could have pushed him over the edge as Wolfowitz and his mates wanted to, in Keating's words, use their power to help those without power.



...into concentration camps and Syrian torture centres.

[Kirbmarc]

I really doubt that "Iraqi Freedom" was the primary motive for invading Iraq no matter how morally justified it was.
I think to most of us it looked a lot like they were liberating the oil.

I reckon if it was the oil they were after, they probably would have planned it better. The best explanation I can come up with is that it was mostly about rewarding his corporate backers with no-bid reconstruction contracts.

There's also some speculation that George W. had a personal mission to complete his dad's job. Although that would not have been the prime motivation, it could have pushed him over the edge as Wolfowitz and his mates wanted to, in Keating's words, use their power to help those without power.



...into concentration camps and Syrian torture centres.

Well, ALL people think that what they're doing is right, even when it really, really isn't.

[deLurch]

Unrelated.

[deLurch]

Was Faith making any content on a regular basis after she left the Rebel Media company? I get the feeling that she didn't actually do all that much.

[deLurch]

Also unrelated.

[VickyCaramel]

I reckon if it was the oil they were after, they probably would have planned it better. The best explanation I can come up with is that it was mostly about rewarding his corporate backers with no-bid reconstruction contracts.

Almost certainly a bit of both with a few other motives thrown in besides. As for planning it better... I would love to have been a fly on the wall. Remember, the neocons brought us the "post-truth" era where they could create their own reality. I don't think this idea has gone away.

For the last 50 years, Military academies around the world have been using Vietnam as an example of how not to fight a war, this is in large part because the US was fighting the war they wanted to fight regardless of the facts on the ground. I suspect that Iraq Part 2 will go down in history as more of the same.

It is still a sad fact that the primary role of the US military, (and increasingly the coast guard and border agencies, and police) is to act as a customer for the arms industry. And as coffins draped with the star spangled banner make politicians look bad, the US favours strategies which revolve around sending expensive technology into battle rather than soldiers. Reality has to bend to make that the ideal solution, the square peg just needs more hammering, eventually (after a decade or so) it will go through the round hole... except that there is no military solution for the middle east and political solutions would either have to satisfy religious extremists hell bent on world domination... or brutally suppress them. The latter means secular dictators doing things the old fashioned way. Back to square one.

[katamari Damassi]

A couple of pages ago, I made a comment toward the more right-leaning members of the pit (esp. John D and Vicky), asking why they weren't overly concerned with Trump's financial links to Russia. It seems the House testimony from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) lays out these links in some detail. Here's a brief summary (warning: Daily Kos, feel free to ignore the comments):

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1 ... is-a-crook

Let me put my question again: as it seems increasingly likely that Trump is financed by Russian mobsters and/or the Russian state (the two are largely interchangeable), are you not a little concerned that this could render him susceptible to their influence? ESP. Vicky, how is it you get all moist and fishy over his business acumen, when he's simply a mark for the mob?

It's almost 5am and I am only up this late because Witcher III had a particularly interesting storyline... far more interesting than the political intrigue going on over there in the colonies. Honestly, I don't pay that much attention

...and that's where I stopped reading. You're clearly too uninformed to have a worthwhile discussion with.

Enjoy Witcher III, it's a really great game!

The weather has been shirty in Florida and I was feeling nostalgic, so I bought an Xbox and Skyrim. My husband(who's only ever played phone games)has gotten into it. It's hilarious watching him learn to use the controller. Witcher 3 is next on the list.

[katamari Damassi]

A couple of pages ago, I made a comment toward the more right-leaning members of the pit (esp. John D and Vicky), asking why they weren't overly concerned with Trump's financial links to Russia. It seems the House testimony from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) lays out these links in some detail. Here's a brief summary (warning: Daily Kos, feel free to ignore the comments):

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1 ... is-a-crook

Let me put my question again: as it seems increasingly likely that Trump is financed by Russian mobsters and/or the Russian state (the two are largely interchangeable), are you not a little concerned that this could render him susceptible to their influence? ESP. Vicky, how is it you get all moist and fishy over his business acumen, when he's simply a mark for the mob?

It's almost 5am and I am only up this late because Witcher III had a particularly interesting storyline... far more interesting than the political intrigue going on over there in the colonies. Honestly, I don't pay that much attention

...and that's where I stopped reading. You're clearly too uninformed to have a worthwhile discussion with.

Enjoy Witcher III, it's a really great game!

The weather has been shirty in Florida and I was feeling nostalgic, so I bought an Xbox and Skyrim. My husband(who's only ever played phone games)has gotten into it. It's hilarious watching him learn to use the controller. Witcher 3 is next on the list.

[VickyCaramel]

The weather has been shirty in Florida and I was feeling nostalgic, so I bought an Xbox and Skyrim. My husband(who's only ever played phone games)has gotten into it. It's hilarious watching him learn to use the controller. Witcher 3 is next on the list.

I got Witcher III for my son over a year ago, but as he can't run around like a lunatic shooting people, he didn't take to it.
My daughter started playing it one day and me and my husband just got hooked watching her play. We just lost internet for a couple of days so I decided to have a go. I really hate myself for playing video games but and I don't as a rule, but I am afraid that I have binged on fallout and farcry. I binge os bad!!. ...you might not see much of me for a couple of months when Farcry 5 comes out.

[Guest_82a72291]

I've been playing Fallout 4 for 18 months and still haven't finished the main story.


CaughtUpLockedOut