Longknife

Relevant. Last I checked, no known President or leader in the history of forever claimed to be an absolute expert in every field. This is why even dictators have advisors that are specialized in those fields and there to provide sound advice and wisdom. And last I checked, Sanders plan to break up the banks was largely a plan of having the Treasury Department comprise a list of which institutions pose an economic threat should they fail, in which case they would be forced to correct themselves over time, though the manner of correction would be up to discussion and negotiation and not something that the banks themselves would have no say in. That seems completely reasonable, completely realistic and completely rational to me. Of course it's not a simple task to achieve and not something achievable overnight, that's why you do it over time and that's why you engage the banks themselves and demand compliance in devising ways to reduce the impact of a single institution while avoiding harm to the dealings of the institution itself as much as possible and without severely damaging the global economy. To continue to press onward status quo only has one outcome: the rich get richer. That *is* dangerous for the global economy. If the poor cannot afford to purchase or deal with the rich, guess what happens to the value of currency itself. We are all tied together, and a market where cash is not in constant flow from one hand to another is an unhealthy market. A market's cash flow works best when money is evenly distributed because it means all parties involved have about equal purchasing power, pricing of products at a reasonable sum as well as the value of currency itself is easily devised, and people are unquestionably capable of receiving the goods they desire. You are basically arguing that because something may be difficult or complex, it must be impossible OR we just shouldn't bother and "admit defeat." We cannot do that, because what you are proposing is more or less procrastination. You are ignoring the growing problem of economic instability and convincing yourself "it's fine." It's not. The day when you and I cannot afford a loaf of bread is the same day that people stop caring how many stacks of cash Bill Gates has because that currency trade has proven too volatile to be worthwhile. The richest 1% will continue to grow wealthier because there is simply more earning power in having money to spend. This is not an issue exclusive to the lower and middle classes; no, that issue would eventually affect the rich as well. You are hearing a mantra of "no it's impossible, keep going" because for the time being the issue hasn't come back around to bite them in the ass yet. If you would like to name a specific issue with some tangible plan that Bernie has named, I'd be happy to hear it. But to claim "I cannot picture it working, therefore it won't" is not an argument.

Are you suggesting that with the status quo, the amassed wealth of the 1% will eventually trickle down to the middle class and the poor and then everything will be great?

How long must one dunk their own head in a toilet and keep it there to be this unaware of how the world works...? ... That's from a website that claims that Ted Dibiase bailed out Greece after making the President/PM dribble a basketball 50 times. http://www.kayfabenews.com/dibiase-bails-greece/ Satire or just a bad news source? If the latter, why'd you link it in the first place lolol And if satire, I like it. Hell, I was ready to believe it, given their past "protests" they've done in the face of the lawsuit.

How long must one dunk their own head in a toilet and keep it there to be this unaware of how the world works...?

Maybe for the same reasons that the Russians still haven't released the rest of the deleted emails that they stole: bargaining power. Hmm? Assange says they're just getting the stuff processed and it will be released. He's not bargaining with it. Or are you saying the FBI would desire to bargain with Clinton for some reason?

I found this interesting. I would believe Assange on both accounts, AKA I'm absolutely willing to believe we're gonna see some disgusting stuff leaked, but Assange is also in a position (presumably) where he'd have good input as to whether or not the FBI will actually indict her. I'm curious as to why they won't, in his opinion.

I don't quite get the Obama-Hillary comparison. Obama honestly seems like an alright enough guy, his problem being he suffers from this almost chronically, meaning even if he tackles an issue with the best intent and a great idea, by God he better listen to dumbass #47 and before you know it dumbass has just as much say in the wording of the new law as everyone else. Overall Obama is by no means the best president history has ever seen, but he's not exactly the worst, and his issues (in my opinion) can be aptly summed up as this is a guy who caves in on his stances far too easily, as though he harbors a belief that the middle ground compromise is always for the best. Hillary? She's got a long history of fishy business. While I could believe Obama if he claimed good intentions, I do not and cannot believe Hillary has the best interests of the American people in mind. She's a walking shill, and I easily see her endorsing whichever stances and policies offer the most profit rather than whatever seems best for the American people. Sadly, based on US history, the most "profitable" industry (aka plenty of lobbyists for it) is the war industry, and while there are pros and cons to TPP, it is absolutely something that offers pros and cons to the average citizen and small businesses, but nothing but pros for big business. With Obama I more or less expect status quo and a constant compromise between opposing sides, ultimately resulting in a rather disappointing (albeit far from terrible) presidency where no one is overwhelmingly satisfied with the results. With Hillary...? You and whatever issues you care about are one giant suitcase full of money away from being thrown under the bus at any given moment.

A lot of it simply relies on the morale of the voters. I mean to be honest, I expect voter turnout to be record low if it's Hillary vs Trump. I'd focus more on the Hispanic vote, simply because that is indeed a group that has a direct interest in opposing Trump, given some of his commentary.

Nevermind that, this: https://archive.is/3TFUY Is he not aware how long Bernie has been in politics...?

Now you're sounding like a Trump supporter. Not that it's a bad thing. You know what I have? Big hands. And you know what they say about a guy with big hands. Big gloves? Yknow what's sad is that in most cases we would be accused of derailing a serious topic right about now, when really we're just quoting our presidential candidates. Dear ****ing god I hope the FBI indicts Hillary.

Now you're sounding like a Trump supporter. Not that it's a bad thing. You know what I have? Big hands. And you know what they say about a guy with big hands.

What you're saying basically is whatever designs Russia or China or Iran or IS have, we wouldn't interfere, because we couldn't. But I have to believe eventually whatever evils they unleash would get back to us one way or the other, you can see the European refugee crisis as an example. Plus we have global investments and trade we have to protect, unless you're willing to give all that up and just isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. There can be a balance you know. It's not like we need to from spending more on military than the rest of the world combined straight to spending barely anything at all. I don't see for example, why we need things like the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. It costed like $400,000,000, and they don't even work. It's friggin' stupid. We need to stop the BS. No more blank checks for idiotic pet programs in the military. I don't disagree with you. Our military procurement is run by the fox in the henhouse, it's ridiculous the vast amounts of money they waste. And of course we can use (or not use) our military in a much more judicious way as well. All hard problems though. No, I'm saying if Russia bullies Georgia (not the state) or the Middle East is ripping itself apart again, why do we care? The only time we should care is if allies are at stake, and if they are, yeah, we should benefit from helping them beyond protecting our trade with them. The US should not be expected to single-handedly handle ISIS while Europe calmly sits there and provides pretentious little quips about what the USA could've done better and how barbaric we handled it. No, either they pay for that kind of protection, or they don't get it. Attempting to police the world on the premise of "doing what's right" can result in a crusade and can be bad itself. Sitting back and doing nothing potentially leaves allies at risk. Thus, I argue the pragmatic route: pay us, then we'll protect. If there's no payment, don't bother. As things stand now, the USA loses far more on the defense budget than it gains from policing the world, thus either stop doing that or force other countries to chip in more on the defense budget.

Here's my issue: I predict Wun Wun and one other character (Davos? Tormund?) will die next episode, and I take issue with this. I take issue with this not because I like those characters, but because things are becoming TOO predictable. They're killing off ANY character that lacks plot relevance or proves expendable. Last night's episode...? When Lady Crane was initially spared I explicitly thought "woah wtf she's gonna live," simply because Arya is the ONLY tie to Braavos and thus if she leaves Braavos without Lady Crane's death, then there's no reason to revisit Crane and kill her off. I found that surprising given her lack of importance. Sure enough and completely unsurprisingly, Lady Crane was shoehorned back into the episode specifically so she could be killed off. It's becoming a trope ffs. If you're expendable, you die. The problem is that this far into the series, the important characters are blatantly screaming "HELLO I AM IMPORTANT," so we can all see who exactly is marked for death. I think what the writers need to do is take a step back and realize death is not automatically shocking and interesting. I wasn't moved emotionally when Lady Crane died, I rolled my eyes at how predictable it was. At this stage in the show, minor characters like Wun Wun, Osha, Dolorous Edd, Lady Crane and Tormund should be periodically spared and allowed to ride off into the sunset to live their meaningless lives in peace, because when you indiscriminately kill off ANYONE with no plot importance or value to a character arc, then it's just way, waaaaay too predictable and removes the suspense from any scene where a character could POTENTIALLY die. Show me a scene where Jaime can POTENTIALLY die and I know his plot armor will carry him forward until a certain plot is resolved. Show me a scene where Tormund can die and I know this is it if we haven't met our "secondary character death quota" for the season. Mix things up, let some people live, let us have some victories, and those victories will both be appreciated as fans enjoy knowing at least SOMEONE lived happily ever after, and likewise it means the deaths of the future will be less expected and more impactful, as people will be crossing their fingers on the edge of their seats while watching Osha talk to Ramsay instead of thinking "ah ok so this is how she'll die. Well let's see it I guess."

Did I win Amentep? Are you a sassy high school girl

To be honest imo the big travesty is the amount the US spends on defense and the military. Realistically speaking, no one in their right mind would ever attack the USA. First off, we have ****ing nukes. Second, we live in the middle of ****ing nowhere, meaning anyone that attacks the USA has logistics issues with fuel and food and supply lines. Third, because we live in the middle of ****ing nowhere, ALL our neighbors would probably prefer status quo over a questionable and unpredictable change in politics; attacking the USA is likely to also function as an attack on Canada, Mexico, and the bulk of South America. Fourth, even in the face of a country such as Russia that CAN go toe-to-toe with our firepower, Russia would absolutely refrain from attacking us because of #1 and #2. Even if for some reason we agree to a war without nukes, the attacking nation would automatically lose due to the strain of resources and supply lines, thus both Russia and the USA would opt to fight on their home turf. The idea of anyone in their right mind attempting to attack the USA, yet despite this the amount that the USA spends on defense is absolutely insane. I personally hold the stance that yes, USA should stop playing world police force, let everyone fend for themselves (I mean wtf people bitch at the USA for intervening in foreign wars anyways), and leave the defense budget strictly for defense. Freeing up those funds would do worlds to help EVERY other aspect of the USA, from healthcare to study costs to the economy. (though of course the government would want to develop a plan to create new jobs in advance as understandably a loss of spending also means a loss of jobs) I guess my point is that if we REALLY wanna save money, target the US military and the richest 1%. Anything else is legit peanuts compared to these two. While you're 100% right that we spend way too much on the military. The amount we spend on other stuff is not, "peanuts". WoD still has a valid point. It would be a fallacy to claim that his claims are invalid simply due to scale, and no I'm not saying that. I merely wanted to interject and throw that out there because almost repeatedly, I see arguments made about illegal immigrants, health care, and a number of other issues with the argument being "would could save millions if...," and I always find it insanely odd that the military defense budget does dwarf all others in terms of costs, yet I rarely see it named as something we should cut back on. Housing the second largest nuclear bomb stockpile and more than enough to blow up the planet four times over is a far cry from "the richest weakling." By all means keep the nukes, MAD had a point. And by all means, build a missle defense system. But all these tanks and troops and aircrafts and aircraft carriers...? Dude we have nukes, our economy offers far more benefits if you trade with us rather than fight us and we live in the middle of nowhere, I'm pretty sure no one wants to **** with us. Germany's military is pretty weaksauce and yet both Russia and USA would rather offer Germany sexual favors than overrun it, and you know why? Because Germany is an economic powerhouse with a lot to offer. USA is an even larger economy with nukes, a tactically advantageous global location, a number of allies and missle defense systems. Again, no one in their right mind is gonna declare war on the USA. The last nation that tried got bombed so hard they've spent the last 70 years completely incapable of making a cartoon with an original plot that doesn't rely on giant killer robots and fan service for sales. No one would dare touch us if they value the quality of their cartoons.

To be honest imo the big travesty is the amount the US spends on defense and the military. Realistically speaking, no one in their right mind would ever attack the USA. First off, we have ****ing nukes. Second, we live in the middle of ****ing nowhere, meaning anyone that attacks the USA has logistics issues with fuel and food and supply lines. Third, because we live in the middle of ****ing nowhere, ALL our neighbors would probably prefer status quo over a questionable and unpredictable change in politics; attacking the USA is likely to also function as an attack on Canada, Mexico, and the bulk of South America. Fourth, even in the face of a country such as Russia that CAN go toe-to-toe with our firepower, Russia would absolutely refrain from attacking us because of #1 and #2. Even if for some reason we agree to a war without nukes, the attacking nation would automatically lose due to the strain of resources and supply lines, thus both Russia and the USA would opt to fight on their home turf. The idea of anyone in their right mind attempting to attack the USA, yet despite this the amount that the USA spends on defense is absolutely insane. I personally hold the stance that yes, USA should stop playing world police force, let everyone fend for themselves (I mean wtf people bitch at the USA for intervening in foreign wars anyways), and leave the defense budget strictly for defense. Freeing up those funds would do worlds to help EVERY other aspect of the USA, from healthcare to study costs to the economy. (though of course the government would want to develop a plan to create new jobs in advance as understandably a loss of spending also means a loss of jobs) I guess my point is that if we REALLY wanna save money, target the US military and the richest 1%. Anything else is legit peanuts compared to these two.

It's as if Bruce just pretends to listen to people and provides overly polite responses by default that ultimately amount to little more than hollow, empty claims and statements or something.

I am paying more than that by a good deal. But it isn't about the 'rich' not paying their fair share, it's about the fact you cannot grow any wealth below a certain income level, while those at the top are able to grow their wealth extremely fast. Clearly the solution is more low wage illegal immigration. WOD lets say Trump is elected president What are the things you absolutely expect him to do? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Sexism is a two-way street, Bruce. The notion that men can't feel embarrassment at having their sex tapes leaked is no less stupid and harmful than the overall societal view that ties women's worth to their perceived purity. But I am not really convincing anyone about my point, let me try this another way. Bill Cosby is a sexual predator, how would you feel if he was also filmed and he decided to sue a company like Gawker ? The fact that you are even asking this question stands as proof that all of the arguments people have presented to you are completely falling on deaf ears and you haven't made any attempt to understand them. If Bill Cosby rapes Woman A and then has a consentual sex tape made with Woman B, no, his crimes involving Woman A do not absolve him of his right to privacy with Woman B. It's called objective thinking, and it's a cornerstone of any legal system. It's important to be able to analyze a situation and pinpoint the facts as they stand within individual cases. A completely seperate case should have little to no impact on another ("little to no" being that for example if you're charged with theft and then later steal again, this will play into the judge's ruling). By your logic, if I owe such an outstanding sum of money to the local electronics store that a collection agency sent on their behalf can legally obtain the right to come search my belongings for any valuables that could pay my debt, then what difference does it make if my landlord waltzes into my apartment completely unannounced one day because my rent was a day late. No, there's a big difference there, and breaking the law in one case does not give others the right to violate your rights.

People are being pretty hard on it, but some stuff is pretty bad. The Hound in episode 7 for example left on a note that implied an upcoming conflict and possibly the resurfacing of a book character. Instead no, his conflict was resolved in a matter of seconds. It was a blatant bait-and-switch where they attempted to hype the conflict up, and then lo and behold instead we get nothing. And Jaime, as I implied, I feel the writers are spending TOO much time on his inner conflicts. We're at the stages where we should start to see pay off of his character development, and while overall it is there, it's still amidst mixed signals and seems to be there solely for the purpose of dragging it out, like "filler" except the filler is just the same character development being repeated for the third time. There was also an image they released that heavily implied Syrio Forel would return; there was a guy behind the waif that had his sillouette almost exactly. The issue is clear: the show is not above playing into hype for viewership. The Hound "conflict" sums that up best: in reality the conflict was practically non-existent, but we left on a note that implied serious problems with the Brotherhood without Banners and that he'd be going nuts on a quest for vengence. Nope, none of that. Nothing whatsoever. In short I think people are annoyed because the show, it's previews and snippets of it's writing are condoning themselves as though this is god damned DBZ and we need a really hyped up "NEXT TIME ON THE NEXT EXCITING EPISODE OF DRAGON BALL Z: HERE'S AN OBSCURE SILLHOUETTE THAT LOOKS LIKE KHAL DROGO ON THE IRON THRONE. IS HE RETURNING??????????????" Then you get the episode and it turns out it was Tommen with a bad hair day and it's like wtf. The writing of this show can stand up on it's own, they don't need this bait and switch crap and clearly all it does is annoy people.

So if Jennifer Lawrence was married and having sex with someone outside that marriage - even if all parties involved, even her spouse, had consented to it -, she'd deserve having the Internet plastered with videos of that? C'mon aluminium, you're smarter than this. Cheating + womyn + attractive = How dare Gawker do that!?! If you're going to dogpile, try harder than that. BUT MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

THIS WEEK IN GAME OF THRONES.... "Grrrr I am the Hound and I am mad so I will avenge my friends." "Hello Hound, we are the group you seek to murder and we are also mad at those guys and we're killing them for you." "Oh.....well ****." "I am Jaime Lannister and I am on a redemption character arc, so I am going to offer you nice, peaceful terms if you simply comply and surrender the castle." "You're a **** and a kingslayer you worthless sack of ****." "Did I say I am on a redemption arc? I meant it's painfully obvious the writers are trying to stretch out my storyline as long as possible, so I will now proclaim that Cersei is best girl and if you do not surrender the castle I'll rip off your kid's **** and feed it to him before drowning him....also tell Brienne I said hi and ask her if she's doing anything saturday night." "CLEGANEBOWL GET HYPE." "The High Sparrow has deemed hype a sin in the eyes of the Gods, and therefore there shall be no trial by combat." "Well ****." "I am Arya Stark, everyone is speculating I am actually Jaqen or some complex, cunning plan or test on his behalf where the Waif is actually the one being tricked." "Is it true?" "No lol, brb killing the Waif off camera and then leaving." "I AM DAENERYS TARGARYEN, QUEEN OF THE ANDALS, THE RHOYNAR AND THE FIRST MEN, QUEEN OF MEREEN, KHALEESI OF THE GREAT GRASS SEA, BREAKER OF CHAINS AND MOTHER OF DRAGONS, AND IT HAS BEEN AN ENTIRE EPISODE SINCE I GOT TO SCREAM MY TITLES WITH SOME SMUG BITCHY SMIRK ON MY FACE WHILE PARTAKING IN A MELODRAMATIC AND POINTLESS SCENE, SO HERE I AM BEING SMUG AND MELODRAMATIC." "I am Lancel and we are here to create an excuse for the Mountain to kill some ****." *The Mountain kills a man* "K that's enough. Bye." EDIT: What the HELL is up with the spacing of this post? Does tampering with text size make a post drunk?

So if Jennifer Lawrence was married and having sex with someone outside that marriage - even if all parties involved, even her spouse, had consented to it -, she'd deserve having the Internet plastered with videos of that? C'mon aluminium, you're smarter than this. Cheating + womyn + attractive = How dare Gawker do that!?!

This is the type of criticism I dont understand....why is a photo with Hilary and and another women holding doughnuts considered funny or strange? Sigh. Look at the donuts and think of the female reproductive system. Okay thanks for explaining, I still dont see any humor in the photo but we all have different things that amuse us I agree, it's not funny. I mean it doesn't make any sense. We all know Bill hasn't touched her in decades so that donut is hardly an accurate representation of an untouched woman.

I think you guys are a tad off with Sansa. I don't think her weakness is stupidity, I think her weakness is cruelty. GRRM once said the ending would be "bittersweet." I think we're going to see a cycle of sorts, and I think the surviving characters are either going to "replace" characters we've lost or they're going to repeat their own history. One example is that Baratheon as a house was founded by a bastard, and sure enough the only remaining Baratheon is Gendry, who is a bastard. If Baratheon as a house survives, it'll be through him, time will repeat. Jaime is another interesting one and while I can envision him both living and dying, if he lives then I expect him to once again make a tough decision that garners him some infamy but ultimately helps the realm. I mean a common theory is Cersei will become a "Mad Queen" of sorts and it makes sense Jaime would put her down. In Sansa's case...? I believe the characters that have been around her and others cultivate who they've become. Jon has been influence by Commander Mormont, Aemon, Sam, Thorne etc etc, Arya by the Hound, by Syrio, by Jaqen, etc etc, and Sansa...? I find it interesting that Cersei took a special interest in Sansa. Sansa was one of the few characters Cersei actively let her guard down around and showed some compassion for. Hell, looking back on it? I'd go so far as to say Cersei encouraged Joffery to wed Margaery not out of politics or distrust, but out of sympathy for Sansa. The Blackwater scenes they had together were a definite oddity in Cersei's mannerisms, and likewise if I recall correctly, part of Cersei's prophecy regarding her downfall involves her being replaced by a "younger, more beautiful" queen. Cersei suspects Margaery, many fans suspect Danerys. Me...? I suspect Sansa. Sansa has been "raised" and "cultivated" by Joffery, the Hound, Cersei, Littlefinger, Tyrion, Ramsay....the majority of those characters taught her cruelties of the world and deceitful ways of gaining power, and I expect her to use those methods herself. I fully expect that by the time GoT is over, Sansa will likely be alive, but she may not be the same likeable character we have now. I expect that Sansa is going to be the one to "replace" Cersei in terms of characteristics.