Elerond

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/suicide-squad-review This is particularly harsh "Suicide Squad is bad. Not fun bad. Not redeemable bad. Not the kind of bad that is the unfortunate result of artists honorably striving for something ambitious and falling short. Suicide Squad is just bad. It’s ugly and boring, a toxic combination that means the film’s highly fetishized violence doesn’t even have the exciting tingle of the wicked or the taboo. (Oh, how the movie wants to be both of those things.) It’s simply a dull chore steeped in flaccid machismo, a shapeless, poorly edited trudge that adds some mildly appalling sexism and even a soupçon of racism to its abundant, hideously timed gun worship. But, perhaps worst of all, Suicide Squad is ultimately too shoddy and forgettable to even register as revolting. At least revolting would have been something."

Going to see Suicide Squad tomorrow, hopefully it isn't as bad as reviews say it is.

Hypocrisy indeed... better strike now since we all know that Assad has stockpiles of WMD's! (I wonder if anyone is going to buy that argument a second time?) That speech was after WMD (chemical weapon, rockets containing sarin) were provably used in Ghouta, Syria against civilian population. Although it has been under disputation was strike done by Assad's regime or opposition, but eventually Assad's regime eventually decided to give up their chemical weapons to be destroyed.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change. What are your arguments then for voting Trump? That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected. If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself. Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day. Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like. When our discussion was initially about Hillary and winds up being about how I should vote third party, that speaks volumes about her. Never in the past has it been so difficult to defend the two major party candidates to the point such a discussion reliably results in someone conceding that third parties are the answer. You asked positive redeemable qualities about her I listed some, you dismissed them as worthless to you, so I asked if you have reason to vote Trump and you indicate that you aren't any more willing to vote for him and you think that both Clinton and Trump have done bad job to explain why you should vote them, so there really isn't any other logical conclusion than that you should look for third party candidate that you think is worth of your vote.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change. What are your arguments then for voting Trump? That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected. If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself. Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day. Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like.

Neither understands Putin, so I would not bet on good deal in either case. Clinton - Obama dynasty

Elerond how are things in Finland? Have you guys had anymore issue around the immigrants ? There hasn't been notable issues.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760118982393430016 It seem that Clinton worked for said company in 80s and 90s and said company gives money to charity in Clinton's name (Bill not Hilary). And said company has done business in Syria and seems to have paid taxes and bought oil from ISIS.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change. What are your arguments then for voting Trump?

Yep, i had to check OECD again. It's 6 million ethnic german men in that very important demographic, and 1.6 millions immigrants (2nd and 3rd generation turks mostly, those foreign statistics were before the immigrant crisis). It just means that that it takes 2 years longer to cross the demographic rubicon of Germany if the wave is the same as before. One can make the assessment that Europe is rich and stable because they aren't controlled by extremists, be it of the Islamist, nationalist, Christian, communist or any other variety. Also, yes, numbers can be your friend. The EU has more than 500 million people, in 2015 there were 1 - 1.5 million migrants. Not all of them were Muslim, only a small minority of Muslims are "extremist Islamists". You can work out the percentages and stuff for yourself. 1-1.5 million to Germany alone, where over 70% of them were men in the age of 17-35. In a country where the amount of people in the same demographic age is about 4 million. I see a great conflict brewing. Germany has bit less than million and about 60% of those are in age group 17-35 including both men and women. At least that is what Germany officially says Last year over 90% of final verdicts in asylum applications in Germany were rejections. Which necessary don't tell anything about future. I seriously doubt that the german authorities have to capabilities to enact them. They don't even have the full picture of how there are to begin with. Your demographics is for 2016 if you look at the raw data from UNCHR, the older ones back in september for the really big wave was 70% men. My stats are from from Eurostats for 2015 Distribution by age of (non-EU) first time asylum applicants in the EU and EFTA Member States, 2015

One can make the assessment that Europe is rich and stable because they aren't controlled by extremists, be it of the Islamist, nationalist, Christian, communist or any other variety. Also, yes, numbers can be your friend. The EU has more than 500 million people, in 2015 there were 1 - 1.5 million migrants. Not all of them were Muslim, only a small minority of Muslims are "extremist Islamists". You can work out the percentages and stuff for yourself. 1-1.5 million to Germany alone, where over 70% of them were men in the age of 17-35. In a country where the amount of people in the same demographic age is about 4 million. I see a great conflict brewing. Germany has bit less than million and about 60% of those are in age group 17-35 including both men and women. At least that is what Germany officially says Last year over 90% of final verdicts in asylum applications in Germany were rejections. Which necessary don't tell anything about future.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.

Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.

Immigration police? So, just a reminder, being in the US without proper documentation is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense. BEING in the US without proper documentation is a civil offense, true. ENTERING the US illegally is both criminal AND civil. See Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.), or Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) for the exact statutory language http://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act Yes, but not everyone enters illegally. I have understood that majority of illegals come in USA legally, as tourists, students or workers, but don't leave after their residence visa ends. Which is why so called experts don't think that fences or walls are effective way to solve illegal immigration issue. EDIT: Although wikipedia's infallible article tells that about 6-7 million of US's illegal immigrants have illegally entered the country and about 5.5 million of illegal immigrants have overstayed their visa.

They have mentioned Q1 2017

I didn't know that Bill has changed their gender to woman

I ranked both Marvel movies better than GB 16, so where is the problem?

Today's children's programs have become so much more graphic and sexualized than those in my childhood

I did go see new Ghostbusters, I was surprised that it was actually watchable movie after all the negativity that I have heard and read. I don't think it will be similar cult classic like original, but decent and somewhat funny. Compared to other block busters that I have watched this year, it is better than Batman vs. Superman, but far from Captain America 3 and Deadpool.

The main compromise is that while I'm sure Stein and Johnson have their own sets of flaws, they're far too small to be as criminal as Hillary and it would truly take some effort to be as "special" as Trump, not to mention that if a third party were to somehow pull even 20% of the vote, it might encourage people to give new parties a shot in future elections, which is clearly needed, given the DNC corruption. Anybody that is against vaccines is absolutely incompetent to lead country. It is flaw that either Trump or Clinton don't come even close to. I don't know if I would be so quick to discredit someone's entire record due to one quirk. Even so, I'd still argue that Stein would be hard-pressed to ban vaccines in the USA, whereas Hillary installing TPP for example, she has the backing of every lobbyist in the country. Pick your poison wisely, and I would argue that we have an antidote for the ones Johnson and Stein may carry. It is not quirk it is health hazard for entire nation that risks millions of lives. EDIT: You don't need to even stop vaccinations fully to cause big health problems. You need to decrease vaccination percent only ten/twenty percent and most of herd immunity is gone and lots of disappeared diseases will come back and do devastating damage. So president that is against vaccinations is quite dangerous thing for nation that already suffers from anti-vaccination movements.

The main compromise is that while I'm sure Stein and Johnson have their own sets of flaws, they're far too small to be as criminal as Hillary and it would truly take some effort to be as "special" as Trump, not to mention that if a third party were to somehow pull even 20% of the vote, it might encourage people to give new parties a shot in future elections, which is clearly needed, given the DNC corruption. Anybody that is against vaccines is absolutely incompetent to lead country. It is flaw that either Trump or Clinton don't come even close to.

I bet they said that in Venezuela too. Now they're eating their pets. At least they had couple years break in eating their pets before their government run out cash. In other words, First Venezuela prospered under dictatorship, but that ended when country could not get anymore loans, but new government that replaced said dictatorship was able to fix Venezuela's dept problem thanks mostly for rise of oil prices and this eventually lead that Venezuela prospered when oil price was high but then its economy crashed when oil price dropped then its economy started again prosper when oil price rose again and then it crashed again when oil prices again crashed and then it crashed more because of coup attempt and business strikes, which combined lead exodus of foreign investments. Now Venezuela's economy is in theory in recovery but out of control inflation is destroying it and things aren't helped that oil revenue is lowest in past half century and oil is still Venezuela's main export.

Guccifer (original) who hacked Hillary's emails was Romanian, Guccifer 2.0 is ??? though he claims not to be russian. They're separate people. Sweden and Finland have been 2 years from joining NATO since 1989. And Sweden is not even slightly neutral already, NATO membership would just formalise things. The big eastwards push was meant to be Georgia and Ukraine, and they both now have active territorial disputes. In 1989 Finland was closer to joining in Soviet Union than Nato, which is why for example USA forced Finland to end its submarine manufacturing, because they were too advanced and were therefore risk for national security of USA.

Won't automatically protect the Baltic States, not won't protect them at all. And since Estonia does spend more than 2% of GDP on defence it's presumably only the two Ls that need to worry. NATOs eastwards expansion is dead anyway, and good riddance to it. Which is probably why Finland's delegates are constantly invited to Nato's summits and why we have increasing number of military exercises with USA and other Nato countries. Although I personally would prefer if we (Finland) would distance itself from Nato and increase our own defense forces. So Trump becoming president would actually help my own political agenda as it would undermine our Nato supporters claims that we can decrease our defense forces if we join in Nato.

He already said why he wanted trump to win, because Trump said he wanted better relations with Russia, and a good relationship with the US is a win for Russia. Or it maybe because Trump said that USA will not protect Baltic states or other smaller Nato countries during his presidency, which would be quite deathblow for Nato's expansion endeavors in Eastern Europe.