Valsuelm

Both for certain, with much of the corruption done under the guise of incompetence. 'Whoops! We didn't mean to do that!'. Reports and evidence of rampant corruption in NYC elections is nothing new. Especially in Brooklyn, Harlem, and parts of the Bronx. It's been going on for decades. Almost every election there are calls to investigate, and the investigations either never happen or never go anywhere. I have little doubt the inevitable new calls for investigations into the corruption will also go nowhere. The politicians from these areas also tend to be more blatantly corrupt than average Joe corrupt politician (ie: Mr Rangel). It's corruption that certainly almost always benefits the establishment democratic candidate, and it's possible that Hillary Clinton would never have won her initial term as NY Senator without that corruption, as these are the populated districts that somehow carry the blue to victory when often they lose almost everywhere else in the entire state.

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. The best thing that could possibly happen I think is if Trump and Bernie both end up running independent. I do think that would kill both parties, as who would win I do not know, but I'd put a boatload of money that Trump or Bernie would be the winner and the other the runner up. The establishment candidates of both the red and blue party would take 3rd and 4th place in a 4 way election. 'Anti-establishment' is arguably the biggest issue this election, and one the establishment press and establishment politicians is barely talking about. Nevertheless, it's still out there right in front of everyone's face in both the success of Sanders and Trump. Sadly, a four way race is not going to happen. As while there's still a small possibility that Trump would run independent, Sanders will sadly likely just roll over come convention time.

It hasn't defied actual political logic at all. It has only defied what the most of the bought and paid for talking heads on TV say is political logic, but is actually just propaganda or stupidity. The same is true for Bernie for the most part.

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. Hillary winning New York will be a testament to one of two things (or perhaps both): 1. Just how much the out of touch very low IQ vote matters. ie: Obamaphone folks, most of whom couldn't tell you who the current VP is if their life depended on it. And often almost literally need their hands held to get to the polls. Many of whom are probably unaware that Bernie even exists. 2. Just how much the elections are rigged. The support for Bernie is very strong in New York. Particularly in Upstate and Long Island. You are hard pressed to find many vocal Hillary supporters. Most democrats with a brain are voting for him, and some aren't voting at all as they plan to vote Trump (that's what people I know in the NY Dem party who are campaigning for Hillary (mostly because they have to) even tell me). While Nassau, Erie, and maybe even Monroe counties and might be a toss up (due to the slumish areas, and relative plethora of detached from reality babyboomers in them), the rest of New York outside of NYC should definitely be painted Bernie's color this evening (if it's not, fraud is likely why). If Hillary wins legit, it will more than likely be due to the NYC zombie vote. The average Sanders supporter I know, and they are quite common where I live, will not be voting Hillary come November, as they hate her about as much as most Republicans do. She would never win another Senate seat in New York.

Haha!! Sure, it will be amusing no doubt. The only possible potential issue with this that I can think of is it might become hard (my free time may become very limited around the holidays for example) for the loser to keep up, depending on how prolific the winning poster is. Perhaps we can set up minimum guidelines. ie: ""like" and make one comment of support and/or affirmation of the other's brilliance/righteousness for at each of their posts covering said time period. If the winner is especially prolific the loser will only be expected to do this for a minimum average of 2 posts per day". Note: I'm no fan of Gromnir, he's the only person I have on ignore in any forum anywhere, largely because of the insane ogrespeak. I will however have no problems with him drawing something up if he wishes so long as it's not in ogrespeak, and actually in sane and clearly legible English. I doubt he will want to do that, I'm just throwing this out there since his name came up. Vals...you cant be serious ...you cant seriously think Trump will beat Clinton..... he has NO chance, if I use some hyperbole its like a clash of different cultures and civilizations, its very exciting and unique but also relevant and resonates and influences the whole world on different levels Bruce, the only demographics Clinton has in the bag are the 'we want a woman in the white house no matter what' crowd (which isn't that big outside of the baby boomer females), the 'obamaphone' crowd (which is decently large, however most of them don't know what day of the week it is on any given day), and some SJWs such as yourself who are truly detached from almost all aspects of reality. She will not win any additional demographics. Her political capital is long since spent.

Haha!! Sure, it will be amusing no doubt. The only possible potential issue with this that I can think of is it might become hard (my free time may become very limited around the holidays for example) for the loser to keep up, depending on how prolific the winning poster is. Perhaps we can set up minimum guidelines. ie: ""like" and make one comment of support and/or affirmation of the other's brilliance/righteousness for at each of their posts covering said time period. If the winner is especially prolific the loser will only be expected to do this for a minimum average of 2 posts per day". Note: I'm no fan of Gromnir, he's the only person I have on ignore in any forum anywhere, largely because of the insane ogrespeak. I will however have no problems with him drawing something up if he wishes so long as it's not in ogrespeak, and actually in sane and clearly legible English. I doubt he will want to do that, I'm just throwing this out there since his name came up.

Bernie would have decimated Trump. I do think he'd have had a serious chance, and frankly that's the election I would prefer to see, but it wouldn't have been a decimation.

The sooner we can focus and support Hilary as the only Democrat candidate the better I dont mind the Republicans tearing themselves apart with these personal attacks and vitriol against each other but I dont like to see the Democrats doing it....yes I know it sounds naive as Democratic candidates aren't these perfect people but I still feel politics doesnt have to be so.....vituperative, like the Republican candidacy race has been That's overblown. This year's Democratic race has been pretty tame. Even when compared to Obama - Clinton in 08, which was more competitive and with nastier attacks on each other. And keep in mind that these were two "establishment" democrats Democrats with sophisticated campaigns going at it. '16 is the year of anti-establishment uprisings where the nut job Tea Partier is now considered the "sane" choice for the Republicans. In any other year, Ted Cruz would be considered the least electable major party candidate of the modern era...except that Trump ha him beat on that. On paper, this should be an easy November victory for Clinton. She just has to play it safe and go through the motions and not take Sanders' socialistic bait through the California primary. She'll secure the party base by either doubling down with Elizabeth Warren...or more likely selecting Julian Castro to be her running mate/VP. Obama, Biden, and Sanders will give the standard party unification speeches at the Convention and Bill Clinton will give the keynote prior to introducing Hillary when she formally accepts the nomination. All the while, convention goers will snicker with glee at the dysfunction of the Republican Party. Anybody in Ireland betting on anything other than a November Clinton victory is just throwing dead money around. Bernie is kind of a wimp. He doesn't dig into Clinton near as much as he could and should. Which leads some credence to the theory he's just a stooge candidate to make it look like there was a contest (I personally think he's legit, just naive). Trump is more than likely the Republican nominee, even without the 1237 at this point. The RNC has already begun to publicly float the possibility they will make him the nominee if he falls short of the number, which they are smart to do as if they don't the RNC is toast. Your prediction on Clinton winning is way off, which isn't surprising since you think 'tea-parties' are nut jobs. She isn't going to secure much of the party base at all. There has not been a more hated politician in the field in my lifetime, and I can't think of a candidate from history that was more hated either, both by the opposition as well as by a significant number of people within her own party. A lot of Bernie supporters will not be voting for her, a lot of democrats will be voting for Trump, and you'll have better luck finding needles in haystacks than finding a Republican or even many true independents voting for Hillary. Trump will absolutely crush Clinton in November. Bernie would have had a much better chance vs. Trump than Clinton will. Clinton would beat any other red candidate that hasn't withdrawn, but she going to get housed by Trump. It's going to be the largest victory margin since '84. I'd like to see you tangibly back this up. Wanna put a a friendly -non monetary- wager on that? We're talking about Clinton v Trump, of course. Sure, what do you have in mind?

The sooner we can focus and support Hilary as the only Democrat candidate the better I dont mind the Republicans tearing themselves apart with these personal attacks and vitriol against each other but I dont like to see the Democrats doing it....yes I know it sounds naive as Democratic candidates aren't these perfect people but I still feel politics doesnt have to be so.....vituperative, like the Republican candidacy race has been That's overblown. This year's Democratic race has been pretty tame. Even when compared to Obama - Clinton in 08, which was more competitive and with nastier attacks on each other. And keep in mind that these were two "establishment" democrats Democrats with sophisticated campaigns going at it. '16 is the year of anti-establishment uprisings where the nut job Tea Partier is now considered the "sane" choice for the Republicans. In any other year, Ted Cruz would be considered the least electable major party candidate of the modern era...except that Trump ha him beat on that. On paper, this should be an easy November victory for Clinton. She just has to play it safe and go through the motions and not take Sanders' socialistic bait through the California primary. She'll secure the party base by either doubling down with Elizabeth Warren...or more likely selecting Julian Castro to be her running mate/VP. Obama, Biden, and Sanders will give the standard party unification speeches at the Convention and Bill Clinton will give the keynote prior to introducing Hillary when she formally accepts the nomination. All the while, convention goers will snicker with glee at the dysfunction of the Republican Party. Anybody in Ireland betting on anything other than a November Clinton victory is just throwing dead money around. Bernie is kind of a wimp. He doesn't dig into Clinton near as much as he could and should. Which leads some credence to the theory he's just a stooge candidate to make it look like there was a contest (I personally think he's legit, just naive). Trump is more than likely the Republican nominee, even without the 1237 at this point. The RNC has already begun to publicly float the possibility they will make him the nominee if he falls short of the number, which indicates they are conceding the nomination to him, which they are smart to do if they want to RNC to continue to exist. Nominating anyone else but Trump at this point would be the suicide of the Republican party. Your prediction on Clinton winning is way off, which isn't surprising since you think 'tea-partiers' are nut jobs. She isn't going to secure much of the party base at all. There has not been a more hated politician in the field in my lifetime, and I can't think of a candidate from history that was more hated either, both by the opposition as well as by a significant number of people within her own party. A lot of Bernie supporters will not be voting for her, a lot of democrats will be voting for Trump, relatively very few true independents will go her way, and you'll have better luck finding needles in haystacks than finding a Republican voting for Hillary. Trump will absolutely crush Clinton in November. Bernie would have had a much better chance vs. Trump than Clinton will. Clinton would probably beat any other red candidate that hasn't withdrawn, but she is going to get housed by Trump. It's going to be the largest victory margin since '84. The best Hillary will get with the electoral college is pretty much what the Dems got in '04 minus New York, as New York is definitely going for Trump (the first time it's gone red since '84). And also more than likely minus New Hampshire and Maine. California will be a battle state, but Trump won't need it to win.

Its probably better to not see this as idiocy but rather Sweden's attempts to make all reasonable efforts to integrate the refugees I have to admire there endeavors, I'm not sure I would be so supportive if I was Swedish ...but I'm not Swedish so I'm sure the local citizens see it differently? It is idiocy Bruce. Suicidal idiocy. Like most other western nations, the Swedish government is selling out it's own people. Sweden just happens to arguably be doing it faster than most. Probably the only nation further along the path of self destruction is Germany. I would prefer to get the opinion of people who are Swedish to see if they think there government is selling out there country, I'll be surprised if someone like Rostere thinks that ? Germany is fine Vals, I keep trying to explain its not possible for the refugees arriving in the EU to lead to the Islamification of the EU...that would be like saying " the Mexican drug cartels are going end up dominating the USA " I actually personally know a little more than a half dozen Swedes (I have friends and family in most western European nations), and have had contact with a great many in the past. The only Swedes I've spoken with in the last ~5 years that don't have issues with the immigration problem, are a couple of employees at Paradox (and people I consider pure morons for multiple reasons (this issue wasn't even one of the secondary ones)). Note, every single one of them is a commie to some degree, but even many of the commies over there have seen some of the light. I even know a guy over there who was assaulted by some imported Arabs, and had some bones broken courtesy of them (helpless refugeefolk even got away with it).. A few of these folks that I've known a long time, were once upon a decade or so ago pro-immigrant. Regardless of all of this, one does not need to actually be in the fighting ring to see the bludgeoning, and make a good guess as to who's winning. The immigrant issue in many European nations is indeed nothing short of suicidal. And if the current rules in that ring aren't abandoned, it's pretty clear who is going to go down at the end of the fight.

Na. Props to Southwest. They've been the only U.S. airline I've had respect for for a long time now. Considering what a whiny brat this kid is (probably a SJW), not an over reaction at all.

Very true. The others are like a few small gnats biting at you when you've got a fleet of hostile Panzers rolling over into your trenches. Panzers repeatedly bleat out 'Beware the Gnats! Beware the Gnats! We're here to protect you from them!' as they continuously shell, push ever on, crushing everyone and everything in their path. Morons go running from gnats, and cheer the Panzers.

Yes its perfectly safe, you'll be fine. Many people I know travel to Europe all the time The chance of you being involved in some terrorist attack must be so remote its not worth worrying about ? Really now? This coming from you? Who clamors probably more than anyone else on these forums that we 'must stop the 'terrorists'!', who swallows whole any government endorsed tale of 'terrorism', and who happily wholeheartedly endorses any evil thing done in the name of stopping 'terrorism'. It's a wonder your head doesn't explode due to so much dissonance. Seriously, if you're ever in NY look me up. You're one person I've got to see for myself. Note: I fully endorse the idea that one shouldn't be concerned with 'terrorists'. The politicians who decry 'terrorism' are a far greater and more immediate danger for average Joe. As for traveling in Europe, that of course depends on where you go. A general rule of thumb is don't wear sneakers, and don't be obviously American. While it's getting uglier over there, most of it (I'd probably only skip Ukraine) hasn't reached Afghanistan, much of Africa, or northern Mexico levels of danger yet. Just talk to the indigenous locals about the best places to go/avoid, and pay attention to your surroundings.

Its probably better to not see this as idiocy but rather Sweden's attempts to make all reasonable efforts to integrate the refugees I have to admire there endeavors, I'm not sure I would be so supportive if I was Swedish ...but I'm not Swedish so I'm sure the local citizens see it differently? It is idiocy Bruce. Suicidal idiocy. Like most other western nations, the Swedish government is selling out it's own people. Sweden just happens to arguably be doing it faster than most. Probably the only nation further along the path of self destruction is Germany.

30 years ago this week, this song was #1 in the U.S.:

Nope. The entire left/right paradigm is a false one.

Not really. The argument is still over a dog's worth for the most part. It's just expanded a bit, which is the natural result of discussion. I'd say this is one of the most on topic threads there are at page 4 in WoT.

I think you're jumping to conclusions calling the guy in that video dumb. There isn't really much or anything he says or does that indicates he's dumb or smart, though it could be argued he's smarter than the girl, I'd say even that is inconclusive. If you think he's dumb based on the way he looks, such as aluminiumtrioxid seems to... well, that itself is dumb. This isn't about mere college students. The 'cultural appropriation' movement of sorts has been growing all over the media in the last couple of years, and has come more to the forefront of it in the last few months. Whittle just offered those two students as an example, and for brevity it's a pretty good one as it quickly encapsulates the issue. If you want to roll your eyes, ignore something, and hope it goes away, that's fine and your prerogative. You seem to do that a lot. Getting a bit vitriolic over Whittle's video is hardly just rolling your eyes and moving on however. And as for the video, pointing out the other side of a coin, or giving a taste of the same medicine in a different light, is generally a good way to point out how ridiculous/evil/stupid something is. The idea of 'cultural appropriation' being a bad thing in the manner that girl and many SJWs are championing these days, is indeed ridiculous, evil, and stupid. Not challenging such ideas allows them to flourish. The longer an individual holds on to a bad idea, the harder is usually is for them to abandon it, especially if they've invested themselves into it. And bad ideas, especially when they manifest into a movement, rarely die on their own.

I also find the video racist ...he makes some very concerning comments and generalizations about " people of color " as he calls them. He goes on and on about what hypocrites SJW are and he throws around the terms " cultural appropriation " and how serious accusations of this is in society....and then his example is the white guy being criticized for dreadlocks? That video looks staged to me ..like the people are actors Sorry Vals but unless I'm missing something this video is going to be another one of your videos that I will moving to my list of " offensive and unhelpful " No offense should be taken and the message is lost if you didn't watch the entire thing. If you did watch the entire thing and still find offense, well, there's something wrong in your upstairs. As for the video where the girl accosts the dreadlocked boy, it's not staged. Perhaps you are unaware of the 'you culturally appropriated me!' movement among some of the lesser intelligents or evil here in the U.S.. Justin Bieber certainly is aware. How does it feel to have Bieber be more aware than thee?

What an insufferable a-hole. It's basically him saying "I don't like what these people are doing, so let me sink down to their level and wallow around." I'm 100% positive that is a ridiculously dumb tactic and will only make things worse. Take the fricken' high road. You obviously didn't watch the video to completion, or what Whittle ultimately said is very lost on you.

Not exactly Trump related, but certainly SJW related: Though, in a way it is Trump related, as he's the only Presidential candidate to express anything similar to what Bill says in this video.

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species. A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua. When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre. Some dogs certainly do appreciate symphonies. One of mine loves classical music, not so much most other music. The other isn't really phased either way, at least not obviously, other than I can tell he'd like me to turn it down sometimes. My mother has a dog that absolutely loves to watch TV. Dogs aren't going to write them though, you're right on that. But neither will the vast majority of other humans out there. Also, hypothetical symphony writer might be an all around ugly human in every other way. Some dogs have abilities humans do not, and vice versa. And as for providing insight into the nature of reality, one of my dogs did once, though not in a manner where he said 'yo Vals, here's the thing'. I learned something important by watching him. One can learn important things by watching people, animals, and other things, then reflecting. Truth is, the vast majority of people are just as incapable of providing me with any more insight on reality via conversation as my dog is. Humans are not equal. That's a culturally Marxist aberrant contortion of the idea of equal rights under the law (something I agree that humans should have). Dogs are not equal either. Both species comes in all shapes, sizes, levels of intelligence, qualities of being, etc.. Some dogs should be put down. So should some humans. At the very heart of the definition of a 'stranger' is one does not know what one is dealing with. And when one does not know, humans on average by far pose a greater potential threat than dogs on average. So, in light of that, in a generic situation where I'm faced with saving 6 strange humans or a dog I know, I'm more than likely going to go with the dog I know. It'd really be a situational thing though. It'd have to be a judgement call on the fly, and perhaps said strange humans might give me a compelling reason where I'd want to save them. I can also say that I'd probably save one strange human over six strange dogs, though again, I'd have to be in the situation, and read the individual as best I could as well as the dogs. I may try and save everyone, but as I said in a previous post, depending on the situation, I may try and save no one. There is no self loathing involved in such thinking, at least for most. On the contrary, self love and self preservation are likely involved in such thinking for most. Valuing individuals of one species, particularly one where a relationship exists, over individuals of another, where a relationship does not exist, is not the same as valuing the whole of one over the whole of another. You're making a correlation where one does not exist for most. Also, you're a fool if you think that dogs are as simplistic as plants, or equate much to them. There might be some individuals that do, as there might be some humans that do as well, but overall, no. And that said, there's been studies that show apparently even some plants like music.

Yeah, thats probably the best way to determine peoples intentions I very much appreciate the potential lost in translation aspects of text. However, If sarcasm/satire/humor wasn't gleaned from the link I provided, I deem thee immeasurably dense (no sarcasm here at all).