Valsuelm

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.

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.