Valsuelm

Give up our guns? That is what you call a compromise? No, much stricter and effective gun control ownership laws and a TOTAL ban on automatic rifles You've got a lot nerve Mr. VC. You sit half a world away in one of the most thoroughly messed up nations on the planet earth, repeatedly admit you don't have the attention span to bother to spend time to fully understand any given issue, repeatedly exhibit gross cognitive dissonance regarding almost everything you ever talk about, repeatedly ignore logic, reason, and reality pointed out to you again and again by various people on this forum, yet you again and again actually engage in condescendingly telling folks in a nation you do not live in, what they should do with their guns, religion, media, and a whole slew of other things. Why? Frankly, because you don't think for yourself. You are a weaponized zombie. You just incessantly parrot talking points created for you by evils and their bought or willing minions. Seriously, go read some books. Any book that is at least a few hundred pages, and that was written more than 50 years ago would be ideal . Find an attention span, and even if it hurts, use it.

You see Vals its this type of post that just exacerbates the issue...you actually draw lines and create this impression a compromise is insurmountable Its all about how its presented to gun owners, it must not be forced down there throats Real simple here for you: For tens of millions of people who own guns, all the compromising on 'shall not be infringed' that they're ever going to swallow, has already occurred. Only the truly uninformed and evil folks think more gun control is needed, or will ever be accepted. Additional compromise is insurmountable. Additional efforts by the government (especially the Federal government) to further infringe upon the right to bear arms will only serve to further de-legitimize that government in the eyes of millions of armed people.

Vote for Gorth! (insert long list of election promises that are obviously not intended to be honoured post-election) I think the question on everyone's mind, in regards to your platform, is whether you'd build a wall. Actually I want to know who you are going to make pay for it. Make the South Africans pay for it!

The gun issue has been taken about as far as a great many Americans are going to allow it to go. The government can pass all the additional laws the evil and uniformed want, the SCOTUS can rule whatever way they want, but all it would accomplish is making outlaws out of tens of millions of gun owners out there who are generally good people, and pissing a quite lot of them off in no small way. The massive non-compliance reaction of gun owners and even many law enforcers to the 'NY Safe Act', among others have proven that people have had enough. https://youtu.be/hxbvYWKhX48?t=26m33s (~2 mins here is about this issue, the interview overall is worth listening to.) And here's Ms. Evil's trollish issue speaking some evil of her own: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/chelsea-clinton-now-scalias-gone/ Just about any additional laws put on the books designed to restrict or eliminate gun ownership within the U.S. is going to be met at the very least with a great deal of non-compliance.

Oby can I ask you something...are you a women? If you were I would feel quite bad about how I spoke to you in the past because I would never be rude if you were women? Are you guys finally getting together? I would donate to a 'gofundme' type thing that saw Oby and Bruce together at last. All I'd ask for in return is some pictures.

1st rule of human nature: everyone has equal rights except those we don't like. That's not the first rule of human nature, that's the first rule of cultural Marxist morons (ie: SJWs, and 3rd/4th wave feminists).

Minneapolis makes my personal top 10 North American Cities list (and I've been to all the major, and most of the minor ones), and in some ways ranks as my #1 for art/music scene (New York beats it out overall, but on a per capita type basis, especially musicwise. Minneapolis is where it's at (even above Burlington, Austin, and New Orleans (3 amazing cities for similar reasons)). The scene there is nothing short of awesome, and to a large degree Prince is responsible for this. Directly and indirectly he funded one hell of an artistic scene there. He very much gave back to what he felt he received from that town, and while this is fairly well known within the city itself and very well known in the music industry, it's not all that well known amongst the populace at large. I partied very hardy in college, went to a school that consistently ranks 'top party school' lists, have hung more than a few times at Ohio State (the school I personally think is the best party school, even though I didn't go there (Columbus is just awesome, even the rabbi there does keg stands (I've held his legs))), organized and threw many great parties myself, but the absolute best house party I've ever been to in my entire life was in Minneapolis (#2 was in Austin), in a house that Prince owned (but did not live in (he essentially was sponsoring the artists who did live there)). Memorable in ways that would take a few pages to fill. While I never met Prince while I was there, his spirit was everywhere. He was revered like no other artist I've ever seen by any given artistic community, and the respect for him, universal. Losing him, of course, was a surprise, though I was aware of his failing health. Flu, and cane. The cane of course indicating a greater ailment. People talk of all the greats we lost this year as if it's some unique year. It isn't. We lose greats all the time. However, it's not that common for us to lose such a unique person who lives such a healthy life so young. Prince lived a life most people should, in terms of health (at least insofar as he always preached and publicly indicated) and outlook, yet something got him, before what should have been his time (57 is too young to die). It's a reminder for everyone that life is short and precious. Do what you can with it while you can. You only get one shot, and that shot could be over tomorrow. In my opinion, he was one of the few pure artists out there in the mainstream, in the sense that not only did he do his own thing, all else be damned, but he was consistently original, an extremely intelligent person, and wasn't afraid to speak his mind (on the relatively rare occasions that he did, as he very much appreciated his privacy). Few folks in the music industry had the respect he had within it, and even fewer deserved it like he did.

Which is no doubt a large part of the reason why you believe so much of the ridiculous BS that you do.

She looks better there than she normally does. A Gollumesque Hillary voice is so easy to imagine.

You dont think if there was real evidence against Hilary the FBI would have charged her by now? You seem to foolishly believe the FBI has any integrity. Yes I trust the FBI, thats why I supported Apple assisting them with the backdoor access to there devices Ah yes, supporting pure evil you are there. Realize it though you may not.

You dont think if there was real evidence against Hilary the FBI would have charged her by now? You seem to foolishly believe the FBI has any integrity.

Billy Corgan is usually an interesting guy to listen to. He's certainly more intelligent and insightful than most. Alex interrupts him a bit as he generally does with his guests, but it's still a good interview overall. Highly recommended for you Bruce. Much you could learn here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojAXUqL--mY

If I make a list of movies not in need of a remake, 'The Magnificent Seven' and 'Shichinin no Samurai' would make the top 20, if not the top 10. If you've never seen them, go do it. Better than everything that comes out of Hollywood these days, and certainly much better than what's obviously not a good adaption based on that preview.

I'd be very surprised if you weren't, otoh, I'd be surprised if Longknife knew about it as it's not exactly the most widely known amendment and in most countries such a situation would be solved by a run off vote between the two highest candidates or highest voted option winning directly. Which, I agree, would be a better way to handle it. The 12th amendment is one of the very few instances in the U.S. Constitution that I would say is actually antiquated. At the time it was adopted, run off elections really were not very feasible, and having the government in flux for an extended period of time to conduct them so soon after it's founding was quite less than ideal, when many (rightly or wrongly) thought there was a very real threat of England coming back in arms. Parliamentary systems were by and large fought for, not granted. Not always with violent revolution, but at least in the same way women got the vote, and violent revolution is hardly a plus in getting to a workable system. Having said that, the 'mother of all parliaments' had its two most significant moments on the field of battle at Runnymede (Magna Carta) and the extended Civil War to Glorious Revolution period, ie in actual bloody revolt and revolution. Plus, most parliamentary systems nowadays are republics with not even a figurehead monarchy. (Please, don't start in on the Gough Whitlam again either, that was unique to Ockeronia and it has been impossible to repeat for forty years. The following election also voted the dismissed government out, emphatically.) To be honest, arguing against a Parliamentary system just isn't something I want to do all that much. I don't live in one, am not concerned I will anytime soon, and generally think it's the burden of those who do to shuck it if they so wish to. If I did live in one I'd be a very active opponent to them, and much more vocal in regards to getting the word out as to why they are bad (if I was allowed to, the once mostly universally cherished freedom of speech seems to be on the decline in much of western civilization at the moment.). Frankly though, I think many of the nations which have parliamentary systems (in particular in Europe) have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. I only said what I said as Longknife seems to think it's a better system. It isn't. I trust he is smart enough to do the research and thinking on his own. As flawed as the U.S. system is, tweaking that system is a much better solution, than adopting a parliamentary system. Also, an arguably much easier thing to do (as much as it is anything but easy). While I mostly agree there are some pretty major intrinsic weaknesses, First Past the Post leads to 2 party rule and that makes it extremely difficult to change anything unless it benefits both parties- and changing rules to allow viable 3rd parties obviously doesn't benefit them. And as much as the more complicated US system adds safeguards and protects the status quo, once the safeguards are thwarted the benefits of those safeguards become a weakness as the system itself tends to protect the new, worse, status quo as there's no incentive for those in power to undo them and so little chance of anything genuinely shaking up the system. Corrupt people will always find a way to game any system that is made up of people, which all political systems are, no matter how sound the system is to thwart corruption. It was the idea of many in the beginning that the system would need to be tweaked from time to time to continually thwart corruption, hence part of the reasoning behind the clause to amend the Constitution. In particular the part where the States could call for a convention, something that has so far never happened (though the movement for this to happen is growing). However some, such as Jefferson, thought potentially violent revolution would probably be necessary every generation or two if the people wanted to remain free. The peaceful means of change though is somewhat predicated on the idea that the people of the U.S. as a whole would be vigilant to at least some degree in avoiding the tyranny of corruption and protecting their liberties, primarily through adequate representation. [With the adoption of the 17th amendment and the so far failure to ratify the 'congressional apportionment amendment' it certainly is questionable if not outright obvious that adequate representation does not exist for either the People or the States within the U.S. at the Federal level. Which I personally would argue is probably problem #1 within the U.S., and one that most people haven't even considered much if at all.] At various points in history, and certainly now, it is quite arguable that they have not been such. Currently however, things are really beginning to boil for a lot of folks here in the U.S.. Whatever happens this election, I think there's a strong probability of it either being a watershed moment itself, or one is going to be born in response to it (and something much more potent than the birth/growth of the 'Tea Party' in response to Obama's inauguration and actions in '09) . One way or another, I do think things are going to change in some pretty major ways. Will they be better or worse? I'd say it's too early to tell for sure. Note: I know you're already aware of most if not all of this, as it's been obvious to me that you are one of the more informed and intelligent people on this forum. Like you, to a degree, I'm throwing this out there for the possible and hopeful benefit of others. Else, I'd just PM you. Cheers! Comments inline.

I'm more than a little well aware of the 12th amendment. It's one of the many after the initial ten, that should be overhauled or repealed all together. However, a four way election wouldn't necessarily mean congress would choose the President, and to a degree if they did it would be irrelevant insofar as affecting what a four way election with the aforementioned candidates would do to the national political system of the nation in which I live. As for Parliamentary systems. If one likes true individual freedom, dislikes monarchy, dislikes oligarchy, and isn't a fan of corruption, they're horrific. On the surface they look good, sure. People get to vote, so how is that bad? Right? Looking good on the surface to the peasantry while appeasing the blue bloods is how they've been able to survive and thrive. I will only say this: Parliamentary systems were by and large granted, not fought for. For the historically astute, who knows well what came before and how these systems came to be, that's all that need be said. Getting in deeper as to why I say they are bad I will not do as to go there would take many many pages of writing, or a semester or three worth of lectures on the back of at least a few of European History. I simply don't have the time. The U.S. system isn't perfect, but most of the big problems with it came later, and are the result of a myriad of things (most not accidental) that manifested themselves over time. ie: The two party system can be broken. Most of what keeps them in power is inertia, and a lack of will on the part of the American people over all (however this has been changing). Party systems are inherently corrupt, something most of those who laid the framework for the U.S. Federal government knew well. They attempted to design a system to thwart them, and they did succeed to a degree. It took a long time to get where we are now.

First, you're watching the Young Turks. A show whose panel is regularly possibly the most unintelligent folks out there commenting on anything to do with politics. Cenk's insight is worth less than any given person's poop. TYT makes the MSNBC reporters look like an enlightened bunch of folks. Second, a parliamentary system is not the answer for the U.S., or really anywhere else that wants real representation and freedom. Parliamentary systems have corruption fundamentally embedded within them, and were pretty much a big part of the answer for the elite of Europe to the problem of 'how do we take care of this growing movement among the masses for freedom and representation while maintaining our power?'. The two party system within the U.S. is indeed an abomination, and was pretty much the answer for the 19th / early 20th century elite in the U.S. and Europe for the problem of 'how do we reign this nation with so many resources that is inspiring freedom movements throughout the world back under control?'. The illusion of choice is all that is needed to make average Joe/Jane think they had a say. Back it up with a plethora of bought and paid for propaganda and a state sponsored education system that advertises and enforces this illusion and quite a lot of people are fooled. These days though, many of the frogs have come to realize that some of the other frogs are already floating dead in the water and somehow this water got really damn hot, so the illusions are beginning to become more obvious illusions. Some have seen through the divide and conquer charade. 'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' I agree that the best election we could have within the U.S. would be Clinton v. Sanders v. Trump v. whatever stooge the RNC picks to represent them. I firmly believe it would be a fatal blow to the two major parties, who while they may still have an iron grip on power, are increasingly in danger of dying. We won't see that though. The general consensus and what the bought and paid for (by the same people who bought and paid for the DNC and RNC) media pushes over and over is that a third party candidate cannot win. On top of that are a number of very undemocratic laws that were adopted (mostly during the 20th century) in various states that nearly ensure the continued power of the two major parties. The consensus among the populace has been changing, and the realization and outrage that these laws exist have increased, but the talking heads keep muttering the same tune for the most part. Many of these talking heads believe their own BS, and the most thoroughly dazed by the sirens tune are legitimately surprised by Trump or Sanders success, and/or out there protesting one or the other. The solution to all of this isn't simple. Well, to a degree it is, but one has to slice through a lot of gunk many can't easily handle to explain it, and it's certainly would not be a painless thing to implement. Realistically I do not think we're going to solve much of anything in regards to these corrupt problems we discuss before actual bloodshed is upon us. Humanity and western culture are too far down the road to hell to turn around without many getting burned. Trump or Sanders would possibly get us turning around a bit less painfully than what's to come if the current status quo continues, but at this point I'm not sure.

That I fully agree with. One of the prevalent opinions (at least the ones they say out loud) of those on the left is that Trump is a blithering idiot, which he is certainly not. Egotistical? Yes. Audacious? Yes. Dangerous? Perhaps. Stupid? No. What Trump is doing is calculated and it's working. I do believe that he believes much of what he preaches, but he's clearly turning it up to 11 because he understands how to work a crowd and elicit a reaction. I've been to two political rallies in my life. Donald Trump and Ron Paul (I actually wanted to see Bernie, even though I'm not a fan, but my schedule didn't allow for it). No other candidate in my adult lifetime (I'd have gone to see Perot in '92 but was too young to vote) was worth seeing in person in my opinion. Maybe Nader, but he never came close to where I lived, at least that I knew of. Both Ron and Donald were interesting, and you learn some things you do not when you only see them on TV. One take away from seeing Donald Trump is that he actually oozes charisma in person, truly is a great speaker, and generally has a very positive vibe about him. As you say, he knows how to play a crowd and he does it very well. Ron also had these characteristics, but to a much lesser degree. Trump even had doubters such as myself (who I was surrounded with) smiling and laughing. I wasn't sure I wanted to be there at first, but it didn't take me long to be glad I went. The whole event was more entertaining in my opinion than most comedy movies and acts I've seen over the years. Moreover, it was mostly positively entertaining. Even when Trump would toss out a negative (such as lambasting the press in the back of the room), he did it with a humorous and positive spin. The man has an overall good message, the big question is, will he actually go through with trying to implement it if he wins the White House. The answer, we can't really know until he gets there.

I hear you, maybe she seems aloof...but are people like Cruz warm and charming?I can see the Trump and Sanders appeal but for me I think Hilary comes across as sincere and resolute...I like that about her Cruz has appeal for the autisticly inclined who are striving for idealogical purity. Any normal person who can read basic body and facial language recognizes him as the rat he is. He is the cartoon caricature of a weasel-faced politician saying anything to get the vote. Aye, he's essentially hijacked much of the Paul's message and even strategy for getting elected, excepting unlike Ron, he's as sincere as a man with five mistresses when he tells his wife she's the only one for him. Some are dumb enough to believe him, others see through it, and lament they don't really have a candidate this go around.

Very unlikely, but within the realm of possibility. I know a few people of various political leanings that think similar. My jury is still out, but it seems to me Trump is at least partly sincere in his message. Moreso than all his current and potential adversaries excepting Bernie (Bernie is many bad things, but he is largely sincere, which I respect) have proven to be anyways. However, if true, the haut monde in the U.S. has reached a point where they're making the legendary French princess who proclaimed 'Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!' look like a true woman of the bourgeoisie. And if that's the case, this election very well might be one of the very last before some very bloody **** hits the fan, and a number of people are going to wish their executions were as quick and clean as a guillotine. Certainly some of them, such as Hilary is that out of touch, but Donald doesn't strike me as someone that dumb. He's actually fairly obviously an incredibly smart guy, but how evil he is and just how much hubris he might suffer (which can turn a genius into a moron) is indeed somewhat a question. One that to an even larger degree than with our current President in 2008, is somewhat unanswerable until he's actually sitting in the Oval Office for a bit. Whatever team Trump really plays for, at the very least he has brought a lot of entertainment to the election, and intended or not, he (and Bernie to a degree as well) has shown just how much of the electorate is sick of the status quo.

Idiots is an understatement. I give a pass to a degree to anyone under the age of ~20 or so, to a lesser degree to anyone under ~25 or so, as these folks for the most part haven't had the opportunity to see just how evil and corrupt this woman is. That absolutely nothing she says can be believed. However, anyone over the age of 25 or so that lives in the U.S. (I also give a pass to a degree to foreigners) has their head in the sand or their brain doesn't work if they're voting for her. She's the most obviously corrupt and evil candidate to ever run for President. The average IQ in the world is 100, and sadly that isn't all that smart. I would fully expect most Clinton voters over the age of 25 to fall for this obvious ruse, as their mean IQ is certainly below 100. Idiots is definitely an understatement.

Yea.. aside from the eye candy, I thought that movie was poop too.

Bernie would have decimated Trump. Yes, but it looks like Bernie is going to lose the primary barring a miracle. Hillary will maybe win, but I can see her losing to Trump if a lot of Bernie supporters don't vote for her which isn't an unlikely scenario. Hopefully though there's some convention **** that results in Kasich or Rubio or Ryan grabbing the nomination that drives Trump supporters out and fatally wounds both parties. So, if it's gonna be Trump vs. Hillary, who are you gonna vote for; if you'd be voting for either. If you won't vote for either let's imagine you'd have absolutely no choice and by not choosing either Hillary auto gets your vote; who would you vote for then? Personally, I'll be going Trump. I don't like really Trump, but IMO he's 1000x times better than Hillary. Your post inspired me to make a poll, Namu. Come one, come all, choose the form of the destructor!

An entertaining hypothetical exercise: Aliens have landed. They pull you and your family into the yard and say 'Trump, Clinton, or a death for you and all you care for that will make being digested by a Sarlacc look like a good time'. Seriously though, I'm curious. If one absolutely had to make a choice, what would you choose? Please vote honestly in regards to who, as well as in regards to whether you're actually a U.S. resident or not. Not voting isn't an option (obviously you can abstain here as no one can force you in the real world, but hypothetically for fun, please vote in the poll). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNAQ9lbe3kw

Gary Johnson is meh and sadly the defacto nominee, which shows to a degree how flaccid the Libertarian party is. And without Nader the Green party is less than flaccid. Even though there's probably more people who ideologically align with both parties now than there were in recent past elections, I expect them to pull fewer numbers than in recent past elections. Their candidates basically just suck.