smjjames

Judging from the video title, I'm gonna say it looks like some sort of QAnon BS and just more of your edgelording sonicmage,

The whole 'using emergency powers to force the wall to be built' sounds like a serious abuse of power to me as he's just using it for frivolous reasons. Sure, it's probably just Trump bull****ting, but it seems like such a serious abuse of power that the Democrats would be justified in impeaching him for it. Also, Trump says that the partial shutdown could go on for years, which is quite literally political suicide, he's boxed himself in and the only way out is through the back of the box by mechanical force. "when the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb.” Up until now, the Republicans have been letting Trump more or less do what he wants. With a divided Congress, he is now struggling to find ways to get what he wants without some form of extortion and is finding that his usual tactics aren't working.

No, I missed the 'year zero' thing you mentioned somewhere earlier.

I’d say that the point where it starts to really pull away from the 19th century model of the Presidency starts somewhat further back with Teddy Roosevelt. It may actually start with Lincolin, but as you said, the changes were gradual, so, it probably did start resembling the modern presidency at about the turn of the 20th century.

Normally I'd just re-edit the aborted post, but since this forum doesn't show post updates when that post is the most recent one... Found this idea about fixing the Senate so that it's apportioned by population. Keep one senator in to 'preserve federalism' (IMO, it should stick with two per state as the base) and then apportion it by population. In the example given using 1/100 of population (I call it an example because it doesn't neccesarily have to be 1/100, could be 1/200 or whatever), the four big states get 12 (California), 9 (Texas), and 6 (NY and Florida). The one thing that the article doesn't address though is, how do you deal with voting for the larger numbers of Senators and keeping it free from gerrymandering. I guess California (with it's big OP chunk of 12 (and that's a Californian saying that, lol)) can do it in blocks of four if we were to keep the three 'classes' (blocks of Senators who have their election in the same year). It's just an idea though, I know a bunch of people here are super conservative and would rather dunk it in holy fire, but the article isn't citing it as giving the Democrats a massive advantage. Yes they'd get a bit of a leg up, but the Republicans are going to have to adapt.

nvm

How about something random that you military guys will probably lol at, a rocket launcher (I’m assuming one of those portable bazooka type things) shows up at a gun buyback, https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/422839-rocket-launcher-returned-as-part-of-baltimore-gun-buyback Whatever your opinions are on guns and possibly gun buybacks, a rocket launcher, of all things, is definitely strange. I’d assume that it ended up as military surplus at some point (that’s the benign explanation anyway), though it doesn’t give any details of the launcher itself, so, no idea how old it is.

North Carolina on that map, lol.... XD Conservatives gonna have a heart attack when they see that.

Seems like Trump's got something on his mind. That's not a fence, it's a row of crude metal spears (though I think spears that length are called polearms). Any closer together and if they were made of wood, it'd be a palisade. Whatever happened to the fancy ones that were being tested out earlier this year?

There have been some on the left who've wanted Oprah to run, as well as Michael Avenatti, but there were also plenty of others who've said "screw that". Not that the job should necessarily be limited exclusively to politicians, but if you're going to have any kind of celebrity run, it should ideally be someone who...I don't know, has some kind of experience being an actual person, preferably someone who has walked a significant portion of their life in a regular person's shoes? I'm not gonna vote for some crappy talking head who has a history of buying into obvious bullcrap and recommending it to others like Oprah (and never mind her political stances which I don't even know what are), or some awful political opportunist with a whole lot of baggage like Avenatti...but maybe I'd vote for...I'm not even sure, to be honest. Are there any celebrities who seem like real people that have some sort of vaguely qualifying experience? I think a lot of it is just people going for whoever seems the coolest at the moment since there is a lack of a real frontrunner and it's all speculation at this point. I'm sure all of you (well, those in the US and those outside who were paying attention) remember the pre-2016 speculation of a clash of dynasties (with obligatory Game of Thrones comparisons) between the Clintons and the Bushes. "but maybe I'd vote for...I'm not even sure, to be honest. Are there any celebrities who seem like real people that have some sort of vaguely qualifying experience?" No idea. Ronald Reagan? heh. I suppose it depends on what sort of celebrity you're talking about, the Hollywood/music industry variety or the more self-made celebrity because they're just cool or are a popular person. Anyhow, both parties want a 'Mattis clone' 'in order to check Trumps isolationist impulses' https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/21/senators-want-a-mattis-clone-1051069 That they want someone who hews to the same warhawkish ideas as Mattis isn't surprising, but it doesn't seem like Mattis has checked Trumps isolationist impulses all that much. Sure, he might have tamped down on some of the impulsivity, but the isolationism is unabated.

Absent outside intervention (like some sort of map redrawing as happened after WWI), they'd also have to almost literally (or even literally) carve their way into existence and would have to fight everybody that their territory covers. Iraq really doesn't want them to leave because a lot of their oil is in Kurdish territory and would fight to keep it if it came to that (though it'd likely be a last resort), Turkey certainly doesn't want to lose roughly a quarter of their territory, Iran wouldn't put up with it either, and Syria may be too much of a clusterf*** to care. *Ahem* LBJ and the Vietnam War? Though I think he simply decided not to run rather than voted out? Lemme check. Edit: Yeah, he decided not to run. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#1968_presidential_election Sounds like he could very well have been heading for being voted out. And by desert world, you mean Arrakis, right? Just had to plug that reference, lol.

Easy, wif a cannon! Okay yeah, I’m talking about the blimp. Uprisings don’t generally stay leaderless for long. Yes, spontaneous flashpoint uprisings without leaders do happen, but any sustained uprising is going to look for a leader or leaders at some point.

This guy is the biggest hypocrite you will ever meet, he thinks being "anti-white " will give him agency and identity...he has just become a vacuous and racist degenerate He is considered very divisive and very few people want anything to do with him, the worst thing about him is he wasnt even "anti-white " about 5 years and was part of this group that always have a lot to say about white people but actually want attention or empathy from white people yet never explain what they really want Its complicated to explain but read this http://slipnet.co.za/view/event/from-a-place-of-blackness-wake-up-or-get-out/ its nto that complex man, anywhere in civilised world he would be in prison for what he is saying Your definition of civilized world doesn't include the US and some places in Europe because free speech, just saying.

The point is that they were already on a downward trajectory, it simply didn't help anything. Also, if conservatives want their own non-gay, non-girl, boy scouts, they should make their own.

If not ‘going woke’ means ignoring the allegations of misconduct, then I don’t think you have any idea what ‘going woke’ means. The article (despite it being breitbart) doesn’t say anything about the reforms (or ‘going woke’) being responsible, just being saddled with a large amount of lawsuits. https://www.vox.com/vox-sentences/2018/12/13/18139984/vox-sentences-yemen-senate-boy-scouts-bankruptcy has a teensy bit more information than the breitbart article that should clarify it for ya. It was already going downhill for years before it ‘went woke’, and doing so simply didn’t change it’s trajectory.

That link doesn't work when I click it in the post (gets stuck loading), but when I quote (in order to see the full thing) and copy and paste, it works. The forums link shortening function doesn't like the link I guess...

I'm not sure your point since there have been academic studies on magic, psychic powers and alchemy (to name a few) over the years. But (IMO) in a world that is becoming increasing anti-science, science needs to step up in demonstrating how science works and how it works objectively, not subjectively. And if that means having undergraduate students in Cape Town apply the scientific method to black magic...where exactly is the problem for the world if they can learn that science isn't something to be rejected because its from 'the west'? We debunked it hundreds of years ago, no point of beating a dead horse, world is not becoming increasingly anti-science, only for some reason dumb people starting to have more space in universities and/or public spaces. Are you sure it's totally debunked? because organized religion and miracles and god and whatnot.

It wouldn't be hard to observe that certain clouds tend to produce lightning and make a voodoo ritual for that. Also, lightning strikes somewhere on Earth every day, so, if they want to split hairs that way.... And yeah, there have been studies from an anthropological point of view, if not a strictly scientific point of view.

It was a problem in the day because there was far less information and oversight available to the public than there is today. The Senate was supposed the be the representatives of the states, and the House of the people. When the people are electing both the state governments have become marginalized. Furthermore the House has become somewhat marginalized. If the state governments elected the senators then voters would be more focused on their state legislatures (and boy should they be). Off year elections have low turnouts not because they are not important, but because they are seen to be unimportant because state legislatures have lost a lot of the power and influence they are supposed to have. The other problem is with less general voter focus on their state legislatures the zealots end up electing the people do get to serve there. That leads to offices being held by people who should not BE in office. They eventually find their way into Congress, Cabinet jobs, etc and drag the whole system down. If voters were to care about who is electing their senators that will lead to an improvement in the quality of people in state governments which may lead to an improvement to the quality of people in congress. It would not requite a Constitutional convention (something to be avoided if we want the United States to remain united), just a constitutional amendment. But it would be a really hard sell and most folks would not see the wisdom in it. So it's moot anyway. True, politics has gotten nationalized to the point where even the local races are having trouble running on local issues. Trump is partly to blame for sucking all the oxygen, but it's a proccess that's been happening well before him.

What he would end up with is the United States of New York & Los Angeles. A union of two towers so to speak. If you want to "fix" the Senate, repeal the 17th amendment. You'd probably need a constitutional convention for that kind of restructuring. As for the 17th amendment... I don't see how making the state legislators pick the Senators would help improve anything, not in this hyperpartisan environment. Plus, you'd have to come up with a solution to the issues that led up to the push for reform and the creation of the 17th amendment in the first place. Sure, it would make them less focused on winning elections and pandering the lowest common denominator, but do you really think the makeup is going to change all that much? If that's what you're thinking. Also, the elections would just put more focus on the state legislature (which in itself, isn't a bad thing) since the makeup of the state legislature determines the Senate.

Protectionism is great capitalist method when USA does it, but when rich EU countries do it is Marxism well it would be ok if EU country does not do it against other EU members, got it? Anti-EUism is good thing until it hits home no idea where you are heading with this? I am pro free trade inside EU as it was originally supposed to be, but some power players just decide that they will instead of customs as it used to be previously pushed subsidities everyone in EU have to pay now. so instead of polish farmers had to pay customs for their products inside EU but have reasonable options to sell outside of EU now have to pay French farmers cash so they can rule them over while french having still 3 time avarage sallary as poles. Awesome Maybe he is talking about Brext? I know neither of you are British, just that it's the only thing I can think of or know of where he is heading with that.

What exactly are taxes stealing? How else is the government going to make money?

*ahem* DS9 with latinum bars used as a form of money? Still, Star Trek barely ever goes into anything resembling civillian life where you have to pay for stuff, so, the lack of money showing up can at least partially be explained. Onboard I'd guess there'd be 'ship credits' or something. Deep Space 9 (DS9) really goes the closest to that by virtue of being a space station and the currency of the hyper-capitalistic Ferengi being commonly used in the show.

@Sarex: Do you even know 100% for sure they're the exact same people who burned churches or desecrated cemertaries, like you know 100% those people in the video shown also burned churches? No, you don't. You can't know the intent of the people burning the food without asking them or if they explictly said why. If they said so in the video, I'm gonna need someone impartial to translate as I don't know Albanian. Look, I get it as far as being upset about burning something ethnic or being a national symbol. I don't like it either when people burn the US flag in other countries, but I don't compare those to Nazis. As ShadySands said, all they're doing is burning their own money, they aren't destroying other peoples property. If they were ransacking Serbian homes and burning their food, yes that would be nazi-like. Theres also this thing called free speech, you can burn your own stuff if you wanted to (local regulations pending anyway), but you definetly can't go and ransack and burn other peoples stuff.

*sigh* How is food the same as books? Crops grown in Serbia can be grown elsewhere (unless maybe they’re uniquely Serbian varieties). If they were burning stuff that would be irreplaceable like personal belongings of Serbians, yes, that should be condemned. But that is not actually what they’re doing, are they? Remember how the US was all renaming French Fries ‘Freedom Fries’ after France made us upset? It’s not too different from that. Also, they’re burning stuff exported to Albania, which is s totally different situation from Nazi Germany.