BruceVC

No, of course it's not racist, slaughtering white people is perfectly OK, why do you ask? I know you being sarcastic

Oh wait I forgot to say, he doesnt mean it he is just trying to create a distraction because of his court case But its offended many white people in SA but Im not sure if it offensive because I know he doesnt mean it ?.

http://businesstech.co.za/news/government/142570/malema-doesnt-want-to-slaughter-white-people-in-south-africa-for-now/ http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/malema-not-calling-for-the-slaughter-of-whites-for-now-2087713 Guys I am interested in your views on this article, is this racist and would you be offended if this was said to you as a white person?

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/89120-obsidian-us-presidential-poll/ But the problem with this poll is that it was flawed as some members dont even live in the USA so they dont really care what Trump says he can do or they dont care if the US is made weaker by Trump

So if that happens what would that mean? Does that mean the Republicans can block any rule or law Clinton tries to pass? Technically yes but she could also block anything they tried to do. At worst it becomes a total stalemate like it did for Obama. He ran absolutely roughshod over them for the two years the Democrats had full control. The Republicans were cut out of everything in a way that is unusual even in DC. It was made worse when that worthless bag of s--t Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules on cloture votes and essentially took away the filibuster. After that is was Democrat rule by fiat and some really, really bad things happened. Then the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Because Obama had treated them so poorly and was still overtly hostile to them the Republicans were not inclined to compromise with him on much. And to tell the truth he had no inclination to work with them either so the whole government ground to a near halt. A budgetary spending resolution still got passed. The essential tasks of the Government were still accomplished. But very little in the way of legislation moved. Which s fine by me. I'd take that every time over what was going on prior to 2010. Now with a new President and a new Congress the dynamic will be different. If Hillary Clinton is elected and is willing to sign bills she may not like in order to get Congress to pass ones she does she can probably expect to get 50-75% or her agenda through. That hard left and hard right bills will still be stopped. A radical leftist Supreme court nominee (Another Ginsburg or Kagan) would be stopped. So to answer your question it really comes down to how Congress reacts to how the treats them. If she puts their backs up she is in for a long frustrating four years. I say four because historically the mid-term elections favor the opposite party of the Executive. If the Democrats don't have control of the Senate by the end of the night they will not have it until at least 2020. The House is probably a lost cause for them for the foreseeable future. This is a very interesting post. But it concerns me in the sense you could have this really frustrating stalemate and most US citizens are sick of the impotence and lack of consensus in Congress, things seem to take a long time to get done So if I was her I would not try to implement the very ideological controversial things like gun control and focus on fixing things where there can be agreement like Obamacare and improving aspects of foreign policy

It's been going on too long IMO. Far too long....its been an amazing experience but Im glad its over

You cant be serious? Arent you tired of all the invective and grandstanding ?

That women is a disgrace to gender equality, I have heard her view several times I can understand any women in this election blindly following Trump because they focus on other issues but a women actually justifying his contempt for them is something I will never understanding

If Clinton wins, Republicans control both houses and Johnson gets 5%, I'd take that. So if that happens what would that mean? Does that mean the Republicans can block any rule or law Clinton tries to pass?

So you are suggesting that because the black people within that town of mine do not have to hear the N-word, they're infinitely better off? I'm suggesting that while racial profiling and provoking people into fights are pretty disgusting, at least they're not getting lynched. Progress! So apparently the forum software at my post and I'm too lazy to type that wall of text up again. TLDR: people aren't purposefully censoring racist speech as an end unto itself, they're censoring racist sentiment, of which racist speech is a symptom. Creating an atmosphere where bigotry is frowned upon and yet does not censor itself is only possible if you're unwilling to sanction bigotry in all but its most egregious forms, otherwise bigots will wisen up to the fact that open bigotry gets them punished and learn to hide it. LK to be fair to alum his one liners do often make sense, he uses brevity but it contains wisdom Yes maybe his point at times is unclear but I do believe a person can make a valid point without a long post

Its true, that word is almost inclusively used on the Internet

You couldn't have said that volo, that would have made you right and we both agreed that is highly unlikely ? http://www.reuters.com/video/2016/02/09/polls-open-in-dixville-notch-new-hampshi?videoId=367336819 This video is old but I just watched this voting at Dixville Notch, 8 people voted 4 for Hilary and 2 for Trump and 2 for other candidates

Malc is correct, he didnt technically call the entire Latino community criminals but he made several disparaging comments about them and the general perception is that he insulted the entire Latino community

I'm feeling more confidant around a Democrat victory but of course its early days, Trump is getting nailed hard by the Latino vote This could be the primary reason he loses and this is directly related to his initial diatribe against the entire Latino community when he called them criminals and rapists

Meh, interview is rubbish. Basically just wank saying what people want to be true, plenty of the usual self contradictory stuff as well- Russia's economy is crap, but simultaneously upper-high; they have nothing to fear from the west, except the west is ruining their economy; Putin needs constant confrontation (examples from his first two terms? No?) while the west presumably doesn't despite having far more wars over the past 20 years than Russia. It's that sort of crap that gives Russia ammunition and is part of the problem. [late edit: the thing I disliked most was using 'isolationism' to describe Russia not liking the west, which is overt occidentcentrism and pure narrative pandering. Isolationism is something like DPRK where nobody likes them and few tolerate them or Eritrea where the country is locked down as entirely as they can make it; Russia's relations with most of the world are absolutely fine. There are even still discussion of a FTA with us, as we're not part of the sanctions regime. There's no fundamental desire to disengage with the west that isolationism implies, just a deep- imo justified- scepticism about their motives] Plus of course it doesn't mention that even if there were Russian hacking it wouldn't matter if there wasn't bad stuff to hide. If the worst was Huma and John's Spirit Cooking there simply wouldn't be a story. Obviously you will reject this article, it raises valid and real criticism of Putin and his objective of Russian hegemony

I truly mean this when I say I can empathize...I have seen some of the political adverts and I think " imagine seeing these all the time " Sometimes its like this insane circus....well 2 more days and we can all start to return to our normal lifestyles

And just think, you're not even being bombarded with campaign ads like we are! Thats a good point.....that would definitely exacerbate my tiredness

Guys this election has been the most unprecedented, tumultuous and exciting election I have ever seen....but I am really tired now and I just want it to end Im fatigued by all the grandstanding, vitriol, populism , bigotry and general antics....no more please

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/11/04/clare-sebastian-russia-media-covering-united-states-presidential-election.cnn This is how the Russian media is mostly covering the US election, very irritating

I posted this article earlier, I watched this video today. Its very accurate and telling

Sorry for using your post as an example, but see what happens when you shroud a few excerpts taken out of context in social reality? Pretty nasty, huh? Not at all. You are perfectly welcome to shield yourself and dismiss others as you wish. The truth is that the guy has suspicious contacts, mentioned by personal name in the Podesta-leaks (Austyn Crites), and it is already been established that the DNC hire professional agent provocateurs thanks to the Project Veritas investigations, where they admitted to the Chicago and Arizona riots. Meshugger please stop arguing for the sake of arguing, you know Indira is right

Aaaah, the fear of the press as their deceased corrupt temple is about to fall on their heads. It's a wonder to behold. "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-donald-trump-could-never-be-a-normal-candidate/2016/11/03/68483dd4-a203-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html Guys please take the time to read this post, I found it very instructive and insightful

Unfortunately volo is seldom right as his points lack context and consistency, he mostly ignores the historical precedent or the actual current reality , this point is no different In 1970's, 80's, 90s and even early 2000's a terrible culture existed in ostensibly Western countries where politicians, celebrities , musicians, actors and any other man who had influence could commit terrible crimes of sexual abuse and they were never charged or discovered and there was rampant abuse of children The authorities seemed to ignore it and cases of paedophilia were sometimes investigated by the police but then literally shut down from orders from a higher position of power, this occurred particularly in the UK This terrible injustice seemed to permeate many levels of society, for example the appalling initial response when the Roman Catholic Church sent priests known to have abused children to the USA to continuing abusing children. Nowadays the RC has made amends for this and acknowledge it was a terrible mistake the church made, so this is not a personal attack on the RC church Anyway the last 5-10 years more and more cases of abuse and child abuse are coming to light and people who could have committed these crimes. There have been cases of celebrities being investigated going back decades like Jimmy Savile and Cosby Now Im not saying Trump is a child molester or rapist of women but if you consider that type of sexual deviancy was ignored in the 1980s and onwards why would a celebrity like Trump who groped and touched several women ever be charged around such a " mild " issue when there was real abuse ongoing all around So in summary, its a false dichotomy to say " Trump couldn't have abused all those women because he has never been accused since the 1980 s " No one was accused ...no one was really charged or prosecuted ...most people got away with it

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it I agree with you and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water. The problem lies in that there is just too much data. By leaking hundreds of thousands emails that mostly contain nothing of importance, they create data block than isn't verifiable by any common person, because it take month probably years for person just to read all that information let alone alone check if all those emails are real. And then when somebody highlights one email from that pile, it is very difficult to check if if it is only email about subject or tone of earlier and later correspondence between same parties or parties from same circles. In other words there is so much information that for most people that read about wikileaks emails, it would be same if emails that aren't highlighted by somebody didn't exist because they will never read them. Drowning people on too much information is what big law firms nearly always do in tv series (and probably in some extent in real life) all the time by sending every unnecessary document with documents that opposition actually wants in order to hide those documents from their opposition. So one could ask why people use tactics that are meant to obscure and hide information if they want to inform people. Drowning people in too much information gives impression that you don't hide anything from them even though you are doing just opposite, because if people can't get information because there is too much noise then people are just in same place when there was just silence. Again another indubitably insightful and accurate post around Wikileaks and its true nature