Politics and world news

[Guard Dog]

16 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Probably would be as a security guard, to be honest, if that were to pass.

Wouldn't want to be in HIS gulag then! 

[redneckdevil]

Really missed Yang at the debate.   Seemed like the only sane intelligent person running.  Weird, woulda actually felt proud having his face for our disfunctional corrupt govt.  Also woulda made the news seem somewhat normal after the constant “TRUMP!” always being broadcasted.  Have a feeling if Bernie wins, it’s gonna be about the same obsession toned down just a knotch.

Edited January 16, 2020 by redneckdevil

[Skarpen]

 

[HoonDing]

 

[Guard Dog]

40% of the world's nations to see unrest this year: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/40percent-of-countries-will-witness-civil-unrest-in-2020-report-claims.html

I can see it. Bernie supporters are promising to burn Milwaukee if he does not get nominated. 

[Malcador]

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/fbi-arrests-fugitive-canadian-reservist-after-tapping-into-encrypted-neo-nazi-chatroom

Need to build a wall on the northern border.

 

 

 

 

[Guard Dog]

35 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/fbi-arrests-fugitive-canadian-reservist-after-tapping-into-encrypted-neo-nazi-chatroom

Need to build a wall on the northern border.

 

 

 

 

The Base. Isn't that what Al Qaeda's name translates to?

[ComradeYellow]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

40% of the world's nations to see unrest this year: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/40percent-of-countries-will-witness-civil-unrest-in-2020-report-claims.html

I can see it. Bernie supporters are promising to burn Milwaukee if he does not get nominated. 

We ain't seen nothin' yet.  

Edit: And Bernie, Warren, and Gabbard will come to our side.  As I'm sure they know the stakes.  Neither Trump nor Biden should be president next cycle.

Edited January 16, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Gorth]

3 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/fbi-arrests-fugitive-canadian-reservist-after-tapping-into-encrypted-neo-nazi-chatroom

Need to build a wall on the northern border.

Godwin's law is the Konstitution of Kanada

[ComradeYellow]

23 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Yeah, I put ComradeMaster on my ignore list literally after the first post from him that I saw, especially after I read his username which just positively screams astroturfer. Those sorts of random word combinations are very commonly used by astroturfers in other places like reddit, and (I decided to just look up now) the fact that the name cannot be found anywhere else on the internet except two posts on a random Battlefield thread and a handful of posts on some Russian forums suggests it was probably made up specifically to be used here. Not to get all conspiracy theorist or anything, but I try to minimize my time being wasted by trolls going on joyrides here as much as possible. Alternatively, not a troll and still not a poster I want to read from. Either way, win/win for me.

What the Hell is this I don't even.  I guess I'm doing a great job triggering people if they actually take the time to research and analyze my content and potential background.

Truth is, I have much hope for Obsidian after Outer Worlds, but there's some people who stick to archaic notions of how games should be.

And us lefties got this.  Just wait.

[Blarghagh]

Eh, I'm a hardcore leftie and I skim and dismiss your posts at best and skip over entirely at worst. Maybe consider it's not them. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by TrueNeutral

[ComradeYellow]

And yet you took the time to respond in kind.  You're just a Euro punk is all.

[Blarghagh]

Hm, it's interesting to note that I don't recall having ever seen you before today. It took me a couple of hours and a handful of posts to start treating you that way. Our first and only interaction certainly won't change that. Ah well, ciao. 

[ComradeYellow]

I live rent free in TrueNeutral's brain.  Gives me fuzzies.

[Gromnir]

On 1/15/2020 at 5:00 PM, TrueNeutral said:

stuff

as to bernie not being a mod, in point o' fact, after calling warren a liar, it would be common (if in this case ill-advised) for a mod to give the defamed person a chance to respond. not exact same, but such courtesy is codified in parliamentary rules o' procedure. instead, cnn clear and purposeful redirected the issue at hand and gave warren a question which were on-topic but did not suggest or imply or demand warren to respond to bernie's implied accusation o' deceit. pretend otherwise if you will, but bernie coulda' responded to warren w/o implying she is a liar. cnn purposeful avoided providing warren with a follow-up which would force her to respond to bernie's claim. a less professional mod woulda' done as you suggested they had in your caricature. cnn took a different route, one which offered warren a chance to avoid calling out bernie truthfulness.  the manner in which cnn asked bernie and elizabeth 'bout the gender issue allowed both candidates a chance to respond while also moving the debate as a whole forward.

the question were asked professional.  weren't loaded. weren't, "what would you say to women voters offended by your comments," kinda nonsense. is not incumbent 'pon the press to treat candidates with kid gloves, and they didn't. asked a straightforward question that were on the mind o' a majority o' viewers. didn't frame unfair.  were one o' the few positive moments for cnn from the debate. coulda' handled wrong so easy, but instead they did fair and managed to move the debate forward w/o incident.

btw, claim there were no other way for bernie to respond is ridiculous. coulda' pointed out as Gromnir did earlier in this thread how an opinion that 2018 women candidates didn't look like winners were not same as saying a woman couldn't win. after all, bernie is running, so by default we must expect he believes he has a good shot o' winning and hopeful believes he has a better shot than any o' the other democrat candidates, male or female. if bernie believes he will win, which we hope he does believe, then by necessity he believes any woman candidate will not win. bernie and his team had days to prepare for the question everybody knew were coming, and you may believe best way to respond were to insist forceful warren were wrong, but is clear such were not the only option. is arrogant and biased to suggest bernie answer were the one and true answer. 

"Also yes, as you correctly surmise, I did use this specific situation because the difference in how the candidates were treated was immediately clear in this example as it is the only example where Warren was directly asked to follow-up on Bernie."

so your earlier protest were kinda bs. is not that we failed to suss your intent with the example provided. you confirmed that we were exact on-target with your motivation for posting your baby eating example. well thanks for that bit o' honesty. 

now, perhaps you think cnn coverage o' bernie has been unfair. perhaps you think bernie has been getting unfair coverage in general from media. we agree. fact the gender topic were leaked, two years after the fact and right before iowa is offering more than a little cause for suspicion o' the motives behind those leaking. for the press to not be more critical o' the warren campaign on this issue is unfair. weren't the debate where such reporting should take place, but to question bernie's motives w/o also following up on warren's is indeed wrong and unprofessional.

you had so many options from which to choose to highlight cnn fail. unfortunate, the one example you chose to pantomime appears to show your bias rather than cnn's. 

gonna quadruple down? is that a thing? 

if it makes you feel better, we will note we thought it were a bit gauche for cnn to mention their own reporting efforts in their query o' bernie regarding the gender issue. minor quibble, but we woulda' left that bit out o' the question if cnn were aiming to keep their hands clean o' the mess, a mess which needed to be addressed.

HA! Good Fun!

@Guard Dog

am knowing breitbart and the washington examiner are having fun with the kyle jurek story, but as we have pointed out in the past, with multiple links, whatever criticisms you might have o' bernie, you cannot accuse him o' actual or tacit approval o' any group, red, blue or otherwise, which uses violence to promote their message. bernie has been consistent and vocal in criticizing violence even when it comes from those who would support him. yeah, trump offers tacit approval o' white supremacists while aoc pays for bail of antifa members, and the multitude o' politicians stay silent when their core followers is involved in violence, but bernie has always been consistent and vocal anti-violence.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Gromnir

[Blarghagh]

Gromnir, I read your entire post but really I struggle to find things that we haven't already covered (with the exception of the "how he could have responded differently" bit which, fine, he could have been more eloquent in saying roughly the same thing). Here's a summary of how it would go - I'd repeat that the context of the question made it leading and therefore biased. You will respond saying it is not leading and therefore not biased. I'll repeat that I chose my snarky example to highlight the biased context of the exchange, and you'll remain convinced that since it's not actually biased I must have chosen my example to highlight the gender subject matter instead. Rinse and repeat. I've clearly stated my reasons why I made that specific gag, and I'm done caring about whether you believe them. Definition of insanity and such, so I'll just reiterate what I ended with last time:

On 1/16/2020 at 2:00 AM, TrueNeutral said:

I have no interest in continuing to debate my intentions with you since you've clearly made up your mind

 

[Gromnir]

5 minutes ago, TrueNeutral said:

more stuff

 

am just happy you recognized your initial fail. accuse us o' misinterpreting your intent with the example? you admit we got your intent correct. success.

the issue o' your bias affecting your judgement is not relevant to intent btw. bias is frequent unintentional and is less apparent to the biased individual than to observers. we wouldn't expect you to make the connection, but your continued defense o' an unfair characterization does increase our certainty that your recent admitted "hardcore leftie" position has perhaps colored your pov such that you cannot recognize which media coverage o' bernie is fair and which is not. bias.

HA! Good Fun!

[Blarghagh]

Well done, buddy! You said the real TrueNeutral actually said those things that you say that the real TrueNeutral actually said, so clearly the real TrueNeutral must have actually said those things you just said that the real TrueNeutral actually said because otherwise you wouldn't have said the real TrueNeutral actually said those things that you sayvthe real TrueNeutral actually said. You take that well deserved and real win over the real TrueNeutral!

Edited January 17, 2020 by TrueNeutral
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer%27s_disease

[Gromnir]

"Also yes, as you correctly surmise, I did use this specific situation because the difference in how the candidates were treated was immediately clear in this example as it is the only example where Warren was directly asked to follow-up on Bernie."

indeed. perhaps you need be checked since you cannot recall even a few posts in the rearview mirror.  our statements were correct as to why you used the example and you finally admitted the intent, as if it were ever in doubt.

as to bias, the hardcore lefty said he purposeful left off gender, (and inserted baby-eating) as if doing so were somehow helpful to you making a point?

HA!

issue o' intent were clear, and with each additional post you is doing an equal bangup job o' dispelling the suggestion you are biased. 

please continue. perhaps you will have an epiphany moment. 

oh, and speaking o' alzheimer's moments, please recollect how first you were arguing it weren't the baby-eater bit itself which were the problem... right up until Gromnir pointed out you highlighted with your parody. already forgot? more recent you has forgotten how you were done with the debate, so...

HA! Good Fun!

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

23 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

I don't know. I totally empathize with the difficulty of finding affordable housing in the Bay Area, but these ladies were squatting. I also don't like that you have companies buying up houses, then driving up the prices of the neighborhood, but the company that owned the house did offer to pay moving costs and 2 months rent for the ladies. So yeah, they should have probably taken the deal. As for the cops being in full gear, I'd imagine that is standard protocol for serving an eviction that has been ignored multiple times. Not great optics, but hard to expect anything else once law enforcement is involved. 

Two months rent for a handful of women in an area where you need to make more than $40 an hour to afford rent isn't going to do anything to address the underlying issues of working people being priced out of housing (it's not that bad in Houston, but it's bad enough where making over double the minimum wage still leaves you struggling to pay rent).  They were going for the equivalent of a lunch counter sit-in, and given the response I've seen to the tanks being rolled in I'd say that will probably be more effective than kicking the can down the road for two months.

[Blarghagh]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

our statements were correct as to why you used the example and you finally admitted the intent, as if it were ever in doubt.

I stole that joke from the clone high subreddit and posted it for a laugh. I didn't actually watch the debate, I still haven't. I had to look up what the actual quote was about after you started into me about my evil intentions, about how I MUST have picked the gender quote on purpose and how that displays my obvious bias. I "doubled down" by  googling your arguments so I can find counters to see how much more you'd come up with about how evil I am, I just tried to bow out because it was getting old and repetitive. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by TrueNeutral

[Gromnir]

19 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

Two months rent for a handful of women in an area where you need to make more than $40 an hour to afford rent isn't going to do anything to address the underlying issues of working people being priced out of housing (it's not that bad in Houston, but it's bad enough where making over double the minimum wage still leaves you struggling to pay rent).  They were going for the equivalent of a lunch counter sit-in, and given the response I've seen to the tanks being rolled in I'd say that will probably be more effective than kicking the can down the road for two months.

can't expect the landlord o' a property to fix broader societal issues.

the thing is, am suspecting the sheriff's department were being a bit mercenary. the sheriff's department can charge the landlord with costs related to evictions... send 'em a bill. haven't read the story, but am gonna guess the landlord is not an local citizen who scraped together his/her life's savings to buy and then flip a property. am gonna go out on a  limb and guess the landlord is a deep-pocket business located somewhere Not in the bay area.  local, in Gromnir's neck o' the woods, show up with a tac force and all the bells and whistles for an eviction is gonna result in a bill to landlord totalling thousands o' dollars. am suspecting you can multiply costs to landlord by 10 in the bay area.

the law can't take into account the financial well being o' the landlord. law treats same the landlord who is just a single investor who mortgaged his own home a second time to buy the property where the women were squatting or is MegaCorp Inc. don't pretend the sheriff's department is equal blind to the realities o' the situation.

@TrueNeutral

admitting you didn't actual watch the debate in spite o' dogged criticism o' cnn moderation of the debate is Not helping with your defense o' bias. co opted your criticism from reddit? *chuckle* thanks for sharing though. musta' forgot to mention earlier your lack o' knowledge o' the actual debate. another thing you forgot, eh? 

HA! Good Fun!

[Blarghagh]

Wow. You're still going. I'm aware that my defense being fake doesn't help my defense. My defense wasn't a defense. You won the CNN debate by default because it wasn't real. Hell, you're misrepresenting fake arguments. How is it even possible that I admit the whole thing is a joke and I still come out as least ridiculous? 

I doubled down because of the way you acted, not because of CNN. My "dogged criticism"! Intentional ommission isn't forgetting. I haven't followed the US primaries at all, I've been too busy. I don't care whether Bernie or Warren get the nom because as far as I can tell they both want the 'hardcore leftie' thing of taxing the countries' Bezos (honestly I'm fine as long as it's not Biden...) and reigning in US megacorps is what effects me in Europe. I've favored Bernie a little because I remember him from last time, I honestly don't know wherethey differ. How can you still be going on about my perceived political bias? I kept going not because I give a crap but because it's 8 AM, I've been up all night again because my infant son's lack of sleeping schedule exacerbates my chronic insomnia and I've run out of YouTube videos. I'm BORED, not biased. 

I wasn't trying to win, I was trying to see how much more you would project and invent about me, and I tried to bow out of discussing my intent because your perceived construct of me was starting to get depressing. You're so invested in my original jab when it was nothing more than a Clone High reference for chrissakes, to an episode of a cartoon where teenage high school clone JFK smears teenage high school clone Lincoln in an election for high school class president by making a video of him saying he loves eating babies! 

This must be how Gfted1 feels. I get it now. 

(If anyone is reading this, send help). 

Edited January 17, 2020 by TrueNeutral

[Lexx]

So I just read about McConnell because of the impeachment stuff and man, it's really infuriating how such people stay in power. This guy even compared himself Darth Vader once. Would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Feels like you really can't do anything, though, because if it's not him then some other criminal will be there.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Lexx

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, TrueNeutral said:

I'm BORED, not biased. 

 

dear lord. bored now as you were done previous?

'course were all a ruse, even when you were making such posts before Gromnir posted regarding the debate? were all made up nonsense? so who exact do you want help sent for?

oh, and keep in mind invoke your fellow mod is particular funny. last time we went through similar nonsense he acted insulted that we accused him o' indifference to the murder o' a reporter. 'course when confronted with an actual post doing just such, he did the "double-down" bit you mocked earlier and then took a step further; the guy who were affronted by us suggesting he were indifferent to reporter murder then admitted that he were indifferent to "almost any" murders not affecting him or his.  this lunatic spiral is familiar to us. two of a kind, eh?

but you were never serious and it were all a joke in an attempt to see how far Gromnir would go with it? *chuckle* not first time we has had *insert hurt feelings/embarrassed poster* use that one.

regardless, as we has had to do more than once with your fellow, you should try and stay on-topic or one o' the real mods will be more likely to intervene.  if you are gonna do nothing but try and start a victim's o' Gromnir support group for fellow mods, you are gonna get the thread pruned.

@Lexx

you will need be a bit more specific regarding mitch. so many options. however, the thing is there are almost no rules for senator behaviour in impeachment trials, and those rules may be changed with a simple majority at any time. is one reason we have mentioned the andrew johnson trial as the best example o' what to look forward to 'posed to clinton when folks were advocating for an impeachment trial. we meant as a warning. with an almost european degree o' partisanship infecting the US fed legislative body, the shenanigans surrounding what is a political trial with 100 judges, 100 jurors, no fixed rules and no punishment for malfeasance is a recipe for ugly on a large scale.

mitch is gonna do what is political expedient. how many people can name the US senators who were involved in the rampant witness tampering and bribery during the andrew johnson trial? were more than a couple. as much as has been made o' the historic significance o' the impeachment trial, in as little as twenty years most people will have forgotten any o' the senatorial players in the trump trial. mitch knows which way the wind blows.

god help us all.

HA! Good Fun!