Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Gromnir last won the day on October 18

Gromnir had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,353 Excellent

About Gromnir

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sleeping in my office.
  • Interests
    Constitutional Law, rugby union, GUT, kittens, Fritz Haber, dutch oven cooking, Shakespeare, afternoon naps & James Joyce


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

Recent Profile Visitors

9,836 profile views
  1. just let us know which one most set you on edge. will add to growing list o' zor dog whistles. HA! Good Fun!
  2. The world’s top economists just made the case for why we still need English majors "There’s no denying that the typical computer science major makes more money shortly after graduation than the typical English major. "Contrary to popular belief, English majors ages 25 to 29 had a lower unemployment rate in 2017 than math and computer science majors. "That early STEM pay premium also fades quickly, according to research by David J. Deming and Kadeem L. Noray from Harvard. After about a decade, STEM majors start exiting their job fields as their skills are no longer the latest and greatest. In contrast, many humanities majors work their way to high-earning management positions. By middle age, average pay looks very similar across many majors. “By age 40, the earnings of people who majored in fields like social science or history have caught up,” wrote David Deming in a recent New York Times op-ed." huh. HA! Good Fun!
  3. sent back to hawaii? alternative: HA! Good Fun!
  4. had to look-up skewwiff, though we kinda guessed correct. am s'posing zounds and gadzooks is having too religious an etymology to make a list such as you share. am gonna note personal affection for the following: lachrymose, lugubrious and brobdingnagian. HA! Good Fun!
  5. guess it depends on your standards. we woulda' happily voted for mccain and kerry, in spite their almost polar opposite politics. both were guys who had a record o' working with those 'cross the aisle. experienced, competent, qualified. most important, we felt confident 'nuff 'bout the character o' each. and mccain were genuine funny too. had the mattis al smith speech so here is mccain's. go to 2:10 o' second video. this were october 2008, a month before the election. not just funny, but gracious and honorable. we can do better. we have had opportunities for better. HA! Good Fun!
  6. is understandable. is why the david duke support makes so many democrats pause. just as ktchong advocating probable ain't enough to discourage gd for reals, his support does add a greasy sheen to gabbard's luster. no doubt will be considered a smear, but the jacobin did an article on gabbard which were comprehensive and scathing. jacobin is kinda lefties version o' the national review in that you got competent writers and the articles is researched, but is serious spin even so. as such is not polar opposite o' breitbart, but is transparent hard left in any event. Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend do research. in particular check for selves and see what legislation gabbard introduced in Congress as such stuff is easy to track down and says much 'bout who she is political. before rushing to defense o' such legislation, consider how you reacted when it were trump advocating for same stuff. HA! Good Fun!
  7. "What’s most disturbing is Gabbard’s claims mirror those used by conspiracy theorists and war crime denialists, and promoted by the Russian and Syrian media and governments in attempt to undermine allegations of chemical attacks in Syria." guess it were a dog whistle. is not a smear to observe how in spite o' fact gabbard is only polling 1-2% she gets disproportionate attention from rt and official russian sources. particular after russian meddling in 2016, democrats and republicans is understandably a bit sensitive 'bout the appearance o' russian interference. is no accusation, but such russian preoccupation with a fringe candidate is weird. sure, a candidate who is promoting US isolationism is not a shock to be receiving russian support, but a 1-2% candidate? is nothing untrue 'bout recognizing how gabbard is finding support and resonance from such curious sources as white supremacists and evangelical ministers in spite o' being a hindu woman o' color who is espousing a bernie-cloned domestic platform. what? wait, what? add her unwillingness to condemn assad, not to mention her overt support for narendra modi, and many liberal democrats is having a difficult time embracing gabbard as one o' their own. throw in her frequent tucker carlson appearances and her attacks on barack obama and is not a surprise democrats is cautious 'bout embracing gabbard. calling gabbard a russian asset is, in our mind, ridiculous. however, articles such as the ny times piece which highlight just how curious is gabbard's campaign is not smears. perhaps other articles is unfair to gabbard, and the clinton bit were lunatic fringe worthy, but the manner in which gabbard attacks the media and advances conspiracy theories w/o any evidence is far too trump-like for some to ignore, and is another reason more than a few democrats is reluctant to support her. oh, and the "mommy" bit is a weird appellation 4-chan has bestowed 'pon gabbard... which is also weird and wrong. HA! Good Fun!
  8. try and convince us endless foreign wars is bad for america is pointless as Gromnir is only one potential voter, and not even a democrat. lord knows we ain't suggesting gabbard is a russian stooge, but neither did the times in spite o' gabbard claiming she were victimized by that paper. *shrug* sam nunn style democrats is plentiful particular in the 2019 south, so mention american isolationism as a selling point ignores how is simultaneous a negative for more than a few democrats. am not denying gabbard has appeal. all we is saying is she gots some negatives which go a long way in explaining why she doesn't have broader appeal particular 'mongst democrats and we need not conjure up conspiracy theories or media crusades to get to where we is. heck, tell us eight months ago gabbard would be w/i one point o' senators booker and klobuchar and former hud secretary castro and we would tell you to lay off the psychedelics. fact she is even in the conversation is something o' a minor miracle, particular given the ill will she built up with obama loyalists. whatever clinton animosity exists towards gabbard is a mouse fart in the wind compared to the hurricane o' anger she brought 'pon herself with multiple attacks o' obama on freaking fox news. but if we are talking Gromnir, we already noted the assad stuff is for us a genuine "red line." is not just the refusal to condemn assad, but the way she went after obama which bothers us, and as you know, we didn't particular like obama as a President, so ain't as if am being knee-jerk emotional. fact gabbard lambasted obama over the refusal to use "radical islam" label while simultaneous willful ignoring assad behaviours is displaying a fundamental lack o' character which requires some kinda explanation, an explanation she refuses to provide 'cause she invariably deflects when her assad position is addressed. red line. HA! Good Fun!
  9. there may be a conspiracy against her, but am thinking there is possibility for folks to disagree with gabbard sans any undue influences. ms. gabbard has attacked the media, and the nyt in particular, but the times did not call ms. gabbard a russian asset as she claimed. times did note how rt and official russian sources is defending and promoting her. attack media for accurate reporting? is one o' those things which has us a bit sensitive given trump's "enemy of the people" calls. am also believing american isolationism would make foreign powers hate the US no less while simultaneous removing our capacity to respond and prevent mischief and malfeasance. am not gonna get too deep into her curious refusal to condemn assad, but given how strong were her condemnations o' obama's refusal to use "radical islam" label, am seeing a certain 'mount o' hypocrisy. furthermore, much o' the gabbard dislike from democrats significant predates the 2016 election as her frequent fox appearances condemning obama foreign policy were seen as treacherous for a party which were as close tied to their President as republicans is current embracing trump. etc. perhaps most damning, much o' gabbard's domestic policy positions align with bernie sanders, so as long as bernie is running, gabbard is kinda the newer and shiner version o' the more recognizable bernie... which hasn't been an enviable position when it comes to attracting endorsements from progressives. not directed specific at gd, but am gonna need a bit more than thin correlative evidence to convince us that there is some kinda organized campaign to undermine gabbard beyond recognition she is hardly the ideal democrat candidate as expressed earlier in our post. unfair attacks on media and loud protests o' victimization is all too familiar refrains from a certain republican we could mention, so when we see similar in democrats, is no more endearing. HA! Good Fun!
  10. lose presidential nomination to obama had to be difficult. the email nonsense, which at best painted her as a bumbling incompetent just shy o' criminal negligence, had to be a bruise to her ego. end political career by losing to trump 'cause she didn't bother to campaign in a handful o' battleground states... when clinton were a senator, with aspirations for bigger and better, is doubtful she imagined her legacy would be as it appears to be in 2019. am agreeing on assessment o' clinton's motive being ego, but am believing her need to respond to political events o' the day is hurting her legacy more than helping. HA! Good Fun!
  11. the problem is misidentifying trump problems. calls for reduced immigration were, for decades, a democrat talking point. push for a reduced fed government is as old as federalists and anti-federalists in US politics. stronger military and even climate change (or at least degree o' response required) is the kinda stuff 'pon which Presidents may differ. etc. so what? fact democrats were ardent anti-immigration for so long didn't make 'em corrupt or evil. the trump problem, beyond the narcissism which drives all his behaviours, is not what he wanted but how he chose to go 'bout achieving. want a border wall were stoopid, but were ultimate only a minor issue until trump declares a fraudulent national emergency to do an end-around on Congress. similar, to attempt an end o' US middle-east military involvement is not vile and many would be in favor o' such. however, trump's cowardly betrayal o' the kurds and his flailing to find solutions to obvious miscalculation regarding his withdrawal o' troops is beyond our expectations and enraged parties on both sides o' the aisle in addition to our allies abroad. etc. starting point for positing a potential overcorrection is the issue. misidentify policy positions as being starting point for overcorrection is myopic and ignorant. the US system o' government, for all its flaws, largely self-corrects, trump is an exception 'cause he ignores rule o' law and spits 'pon the Constitution. overcorrect such flaws is taking a bit o' imagination and reveals initial complaint as ridiculous. the danger is not overcorrection. real danger is that trump actions is new norm. for example, suppose a new President comes into office and believes they can end second amendment via an executive order. this is not an overcorrection o' a genuine problem. if the new President were to lobby Congress to make changes to gun laws and enacted rules for atf which didn't direct affect existing fed legislation, then gun control advocacy by a new administration would not be an actual problem, though would likely be ineffectual. takes a great deal o' effort and debate in committee to get new legislation on divisive issues passed by Congress. our (smallish) fear for the next administration, regardless o' who is in the wh, will be that we see a continuation o' the norms started or advanced by trump. pettiness. divisiveness. extra-legal. unconstitutional. the last two Presidents has changed the culture in washington, and not for the better. trump, and to a lesser degree obama, attacked media and undermined seperation o' powers. just as with trump, democrat senators under obama were willing to turn a blind eye to excesses and frequent enabled a chief executive who were unwilling to play fair. Shocked by Trump aggression against reporters and sources? The blueprint was drawn by Obama. Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees sure, the scale o' what trump has done is orders o' magnitude worse than were obama, but is arguable it were obama who flipped the lid on pandora's box. regardless, am thinking what is most important is electing a chief executive who dedicates self to changing the culture o' the chief executive. impeachment won't fix underlying problems. am marginal less cynical 'bout the democrat candidates than is gd, but not by much. HA! Good Fun!
  12. well, can keep the response vague and generic. trump fails is result o' abandonment o' rule o' law, lack o' respect for Constitution and a transactional pov which ignores morality and ethics as well as a willingness to sow dissension as a political tactic in spite o' obvious dangers o' increased polarization o' the american people. so, pendulum swings and get a moral and ethical chief executive who rededicates to follow rule o' law while maintaining reverence for Constitution as they work to develop bipartisanship and a healing o' political wounds. such a pendulum swing would be welcomed. HA! Good Fun!
  13. fyi: the full al smith dinner speech from mattis is worth listening to.
  • Create New...