Drowsy Emperor

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/index.html I'm not sure what you mean? Yes I am Hilary supporter, many people are. I'm not sure what you getting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQoOtrHG96k I refuse to believe that you are SO blind that you cannot see that line for what it is. That line was obviously a rehearsed humblebrag that she was told to say. That line is akin to "I have a confession to make. If elected as president, I cannot help but spend three hours out of my day each day donating money to starving orphans and sick puppies. I'm sorry America, I hope I haven't let you down with this, but it's just who I am. I can't stand to watch those poor things suffer, even if it gets in the way of my work." I'm sorry, but I firmly believe you have to be an idiot to not see the intent behind that line. It's a humblebrag. A dishonest humblebrag that her campaign told her to try and drop into the debate somewhere, where she gives this impression she's ashamed of something that the American people would actually view as a good thing. And yeah, it's not even true. The very fact that that statement was made contradicts the context of the statement itself. I reference that line because it's easily the most painful line of any debate I've seen thusfar. It is, in my opinion, the epitome of lying in politics, yet apparently people can't pick up on that. If you are asked a question about why the American people don't trust you, and your only response is to attempt to lie to them again, then wow. That should say worlds about Hilary as a candidate and as a politician, but instead, the world being what it is, of course there's thousands of idiots that buy into it. In my world, that line would singlehandedly unravel and tank her campaign, since it's just so obvious and filled with so many delicious ironies that only sink her credibility, but I know we don't live in my world. So all I can do is sit here in awe at the fact that Hilary could not have delivered a more obvious political line/lie and she's not even gonna need to pay for it because people are just that stupid. Every time I log on someone is trying to have a reasonable conversation with Bruce Its groundhog day!

Meh, much ado over nothing.

What's this violence by anti-trump protesters then?

I personally feel it was a bluff, because destroying Belgrade makes no difference on the field - if anything, it makes it impossible to win without military intervention and occupation and that would have resulted in a lot of (politically unsustainable) casualties. But as I said, Milosevic was not one to follow through.

It was different in the 90's. The post-cold war triumphalism and power vacuum left no checks on NATO. Anyway, the media could shape it in any way they like - you wouldn't even know the carpet bombing was going on if it was framed in a particular way. Ahtisaari naturally made the threat on NATO instruction being no more than another pawn in the process. Milosevic, like most politicians, had a history of failing to follow through and understood very little of warfare and foreign policy. On the other hand, at the time and in his position, with absolutely no one to counterbalance NATO (specifically Russia) - the threat could easily be interpreted as genuine. Weighting the potential of hundreds of thousands of casualties with the possibility that its all a bluff is a decision that few men would find easy to make. Frankly, he had little reason to give up otherwise. The army was intact, the damage to the infrastructure was already done. NATO was in a position that they had to invade to realize their goals - something that was not acceptable in Washington. So this threat was a last ditch attempt to maximize the effectiveness of the bombing. And he caved in. One thing that I find strange in Ljubisa Ristic claim that Ahtisaari threatened Milosevic is that said threat happened in meeting where he was to present the NATO/Russian proposition for Milosevic. So anything presented there was result of negotiations between NATO and Russia, although Ahtisaari was mediator in those negotiations. And of course Ahtisaari is cold war era politician who is willing to use hardball tactics to get results. Yeah, but the Russians were not really backing Milosevic in any significant way due to the internal turmoil in Russia, so their input is less important than it may seem. It was not the first time they'd pressure Milosevic just to get it all "over with". The Russian government of the time was all about appeasing the west and not very decisive (the whole russian peacekeepers in Kosovo is an example of that). On the other hand Russian options were limited by the hostility of the countries surrounding Serbia so their position in the event of any military confrontation was untenable.

Ahtisaari naturally made the threat on NATO instruction being no more than another pawn in the process. Milosevic, like most politicians, had a history of failing to follow through and understood very little of warfare and foreign policy. On the other hand, at the time and in his position, with absolutely no one to counterbalance NATO (specifically Russia) - the threat could easily be interpreted as genuine. Weighting the potential of hundreds of thousands of casualties with the possibility that its all a bluff is a decision that few men would find easy to make. Frankly, he had little reason to give up otherwise. The army was intact, the damage to the infrastructure was already done. NATO was in a position that they had to invade to realize their goals - something that was not acceptable in Washington. So this threat was a last ditch attempt to maximize the effectiveness of the bombing. And he caved in.

Impossible to make a good omelette out of rotten eggs. I found the show un-watchable after the first season which wasn't surprising as I consider the books smut on the level of a porn clip on xhamster.

Of course its posturing, although he's probably overplaying his hand at this point. From a voter perspective there is credible sounding bull**** (like the mexico-us border, banning muslim immigration) and then there is just pure bull**** (like this). Regardless, disregard for civilians and militarism has always been a tenet of US policy. When the US bombing of Yugoslavia was shown to be utterly inefficient in stopping the Yugoslav army (which decimated a NATO backed Albanian invasion of Kosovo even though they had constant NATO air support), US simply switched to civilian targets and terror bombing and proceeded to hit every piece of public infrastructure that could be "used" by the military. This included bridges, hospitals, schools, power plants and even the state media building in the capital, almost 200 kilometers from where the army was operating. Naturally this resulted in many more civilian casualties than military ones (at least 3:1 ratio). It was this and the threat of a carpet bombing of Belgrade (city of 2 million people), by that piece of **** Martti Ahtisaari (nobel peace prize winner!), and its implied massive civilian casualties that led to Milosevic giving up. Ergo, Trump isn't saying anything new - this has already been done, several times over, its just that the portrayal of it was sanitized in the media and wasn't nearly as frankly expressed as he's saying it.

Chickenhawks lolololololo, brilliant!

I love how names of Marvel movies have nothing to do with the content. The previous one was Winter Soldier and the "winter soldier" was featured in a total of 15 minutes perhaps.

Because, uh, National Socialism has some negative connotations? OK, so NationalSocialisichte Deutsche ArbeiterPartei weren't really socialists by any sensible definition and spent much of their first years killing off anyone was was an actual socialist, but the name has certainly poisoned the well. Realistically, socialism is inherently more 'progressive' than conservative and at least theoretically less inherently nationalist as well. It's not entirely contradictory to have conservative, nationalist, socialism but the two philosophies are far enough apart that most people won't share both to any great degree. Yet all the various communist and socialist movements during the cold war era were practically synonymous with nationalism, or rather, national liberation. The two were inseparable. But its a moot point. In Europe today, every parliament has almost all political ideologies on paper yet everyone but the odd nationalist party practice the same watered down version of neoliberalism. Focusing the public on short term issues is much easier for politicians than addressing structural problems. Funny thing is, short term problems can be handled by the relevant state apparatus experts even without politicians, whereas structural problems need political guidance for any progress. But then, you can't elect a real leader if you're forced to pick from choices created by business circles that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo ad infinitum.

I would say that socialists can't really agree on what socialism is, with anarchists and marxists and social democrats and every other snowflake getting into arguments over pretty much everything. But I'd agree with you. There is 200 years of history there, during which the world changed several times over. It is hardly surprising that the idea itself didn't remain static and that it was appropriated by so many diverse groups. If there is one common denominator its the desire for equality. Something that EU countries can generally point out is lacking in the US. Which is why everyone laughs in the EU when US politicians are accused of being "socialist", because their alleged socialism is so mild as to be nonexistent. Things like Obamacare and what Bernie Sanders is campaigning for now are considered a basic necessity of a modern state in Europe - not something subject to political debate. Funny thing is, if the US could tax its upper classes to the same degree that some EU countries do it would dramatically raise the quality of life for the lower and middle classes in a generation in all relevant parameters (medical security, education etc. etc.).

The thing that's most bizarre about the sad remnants of socialism (because that's the most generous term that can be given to the socialists of Europe, since they abandoned just about everything that the ideology stood for) is that they're tied to the whole self-loathing lunacy of multiculturalism, political correctness, gay-rights, feminism and every other agenda under the sun - all of which all have nothing to do with socialism's historical goals. On the other hand, all the conservative, "nationalist" parties are married to rabid "exploit everything" capitalism and soul crushing neoliberalism. Long story short, if you're a normal person there's no way you can recognize yourself in either of them. Why can't we have a self respecting marriage of national conservativism and economic socialism? Why can't we have nice things? Why?

It's like all those conspiracy movies, but it is actually happening. I think it just comes down to influence. A lot of rich people are used to having the political class in the US in their pockets so they cannot be too fond of a candidate that is not (too) dependent on them.

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

I did wake up in a parallel universe

The theatrical version of Kingdom of Heaven was really butchered, most of the film only makes sense in the directors cut.

Elerond what are you doing

The more I look at these modern comics the more it seems the high quality artists are swallowed up by design industries.

When I think back to how little post-electoral policies reflect pre-election promises and perceptions (not necessarily in the US, but everywhere) I can't help but think that this whole discussion is a tad pointless. I mean, look at characters like Clinton or Trump, they'll say anything just to back into the presidential throne. Clinton has backtracked, flipped and outright lied so much I don't know if there's one solid thing to grasp and point towards being "her" policy. Trump's entire campaign is more a 5 beers in game of free association on the topic of politics than anything resembling coherence. I'd say that no one knows what these people will actually do should they win, because they themselves have idea other than their own self interest.

I saw Elerond doing the same thing earlier, its like I awoke in a parallel universe where no one knows Bruce. If I dared to go outside I'd probably find that the Axis powers won WW2.

Geppetto failed

There is nothing stopping them on paper but in practice the first-past-the-post system makes it practically impossible for a third (fourth or fifth) party to establish itself because of the prohibitive costs and organizational issues in running so many simultaneous campaigns coupled with the punishing loss of votes in every constituency where someone else sweeps the majority vote. Its simply not feasible, not just due to the political culture but also to what is essentially an insurmountable technical-financial barrier. Its much cheaper for a smaller party to make a parliamentary list, run one campaign, jump over the minimal percentile barrier (where they exist) and have a presence in the parliament. Which practically guarantees it a long term media presence thus leading to more space and time to "establish" itself in the minds of the voters. A small party in a majority system can easily get a double digit percentage of overall votes and not get a single seat in parliament.

The key thing that the US elite would never allow is a transition to a fully proportional system with a single constituency for the whole country. In a single electoral cycle it would show just how tired the 2 party political system is and the whole house would come crashing down. The first past the post voting is what gives the 2 parties the stranglehold they have on the political system.

Finished Walter Miller Jr.'s Canticle for Leibowitz. Its a decent Cold-War era, anti-nuclear weapons tale (about the human propensity to constantly repeat the same mistakes) infused with the authors Catholicism.